hor
line(s) rather than the expected e-mail. In every one of my cases, it
appears because no exact Changelog text was related to the commit
rather than, as in Andrew's analysis of case mismatches.
Regards,
Loren
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:41 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 06/01/20
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Joseph Myers wrote:
> git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-7a.git
> git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-7b.git
I have not had a substantial commit to gcc [or, likely, post to this
list] in a decade THUS a warm howdy to anyone still around from
19
Greetings,
I am the named maintainer of the freebsd port. I have been for
approximately twelve years; although I haven't been very active the
last four years.
The last major work I put into the freebsd port was at the end of
2009. I have reviewed others' patches since then; but it really
hasn't
Since around Wednesday of last week, I have been unable to access
svn+ssh://ljrit...@gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc through
http://sshproxy.sourceware.org:443/
I have not changed any local configuration in some time but definitely
not since it worked the day before that.
I do not control the outbound gatewa
Installed /usr/ports/devel/libelf [0.8.12] on i386-*-freebsd7.2.
Explicitly added "--enable-lto --with-libelf=/usr/local" to configure line.
(Stock system's /usr/include/libelf.h missing elf_getshdrstrndx().)
New failures for i386-*-freebsd7.2 (seems in-line with other port reports):
gcc:
FAIL: g
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> Please download, compile and run "make check" for this release and post
> your results as well your target triplet and the versions of your
> compiler, gmp and mpfr. All platform results are welcome, but I am
> especially interested in GCC's primary and secondary platform l
Hello Kaveh,
Sorry for the delay in this primary platform report; just saw the
second call today.
In all cases below, installed from the FreeBSD ports system with the
system compiler (based upon GNU 4.2.1):
/usr/ports/math/libgmp4 [4.3.1]
/usr/ports/math/mpfr [2.4.1]
[And, for the rec
To whom it may concern:
Regarding the 16 gfortran failures involving gfortran.dg/stat_[12].f90
as seen in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-08/msg02179.html
(and all other recent testsuite reports from me):
It turns out that my gcc objdir was in a tmp directory owned by the
wheel group (
GCC 4.4.1 was successfully built, checked and installed on
i386-unknown-freebsd7.2 (--enable-languages=c,c++ to save time only).
Note: Other than specifying details related to binutils (--with-gnu-as
--with-as=/usr/bin/as --with-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/bin/ld), the
default configure options were used
In article <20090811.n7cmlsw1041...@latour.labs.mot.com>, I wrote:
> GCC 4.4.1 was successfully built, checked and installed on
> i386-unknown-freebsd7.2. Note: Default configure options were
> used except GNU binutils 2.19.1.20090812 rather than system's
> binutils 2.15 and the testsuite was
In article <4a83449e.2020...@gmail.com>,
Dave Korn writes:
> Loren James Rittle wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-08/msg01308.html
> That post doesn't exist yet! Typo or prediction? :)
Hi Dave,
Proper post presents per previously predicted place.
Regards,
Loren
GCC 4.4.1 was successfully built, checked and installed on
i386-unknown-freebsd7.2. Note: Default configure options were
used except GNU binutils 2.19.1.20090812 rather than system's
binutils 2.15 and the testsuite was run with -pthread.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-08/msg01308.htm
GCC 4.4.1 was successfully built, checked and installed on
i386-unknown-freebsd7.2. Note: Default configure options were
used except GNU binutils 2.16.1 rather than system's binutils
2.15 and the testsuite was run with -pthread.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-08/msg01220.html
(Pleas
GCC 4.3.4 was successfully built, checked and installed on
i386-unknown-freebsd7.2. Note: Default configure options were
used except GNU binutils 2.16.1 rather than system's binutils
2.15 and the testsuite was run with -pthread.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-08/msg01193.html
(Pleas
I wrote:
> [A]utomatic reports for [*-*-freebsd] came in daily,
> almost-like-clockwork from mid-2002 until October 26, 2005. It
> appears that I never updated the population of freebsd.org machines
> to synchronize against the SVN repository rather than CVS... Oops!
> [...] I will attempt to re
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:21 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> i386-unknown-freebsd
> Stupid mail client send this before I was finished.
> The last time a freebsd testresult was sent to the list from the
> mainline was in May, maybe that is a sign that we should downgrade it to
> secondary from pr
Daniel,
As a long-time user of CVS (before it was a binary ;-) that recently
read the "Turtle book" and as a long-time user of the open gcc source
tree (although less so recently), I am very happy with the proposed
move to svn. Thank you and all the svn developers for all your hard
work to make i
17 matches
Mail list logo
