On 11/09/13 04:12, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
straightforward (we already have rules to disable java o
On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it sh
On 11/09/13 08:44, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it should go, if it does go why should it be repla
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 1:55 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Question about overloaded operators
>
> On 11/10/2013 11:08 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > In C++, when a binary/unary operat
* Richard Biener:
> Oh, can we consider dropping java alltogether please?
At least we could remove all those pregenerated files.
On 11/10/2013 11:08 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
In C++, when a binary/unary operator is overloaded, then the
build_x_[binary/unary]_op replaces it with a call expression. Is there a way
to know from the call expression (assume we are in the gimplification stage)
what the operator is? I tried to
> Unfortunately, we are not able to keep up with the old kernels.
> Two possible ways to go:
> - disable libsanitizer on older kernels
> - someone needs to work with us in upstream repository (llvm) to keep the
> code old-kernel-compatible
(It appears to be not only kernel, but binutils.)
I th
[resending text-only]
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> Unfortunately, we are not able to keep up with the old kernels.
> Two possible ways to go:
> - disable libsanitizer on older kernels
> - someone needs to work with us in upstream repository (llvm) to keep th
Hello Everyone,
In C++, when a binary/unary operator is overloaded, then the
build_x_[binary/unary]_op replaces it with a call expression. Is there a way
to know from the call expression (assume we are in the gimplification stage)
what the operator is? I tried to look around but I didn'
Sent from my Nokia phone
> In principle, you could try --disable-libsanitizer
> --disable-target-libsanitizer but I am not sure whether that works, a
> fortnight ago, Janne remarked at #gcc that it didn't seem to work – maybe you
> have more luck.
>
> Your Linux 2.6.18 is already quite old (September 2007) thus I would
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
>> Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
>> disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
>> straightforward (we already have rules to disable java on target
FX wrote:
I’m building with binutils 2.17.50.0.6, which is a bit old but I cannot find
any mention of needing later binutils on the installation notes.
Is bootstrap broken, or am I missing something?
Second build, this time with trunk binutils. Still fails in libsanitizer at
stage1, this time
13 matches
Mail list logo
