On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 12-06-15 12:42 , NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Took me a while, but I built a linux to win64 cross compiler using
>> --enable-build-with-cxx.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> How do I verify that the compiler was
>> actually built with g++? ldd on the gcc
On 12-06-15 12:42 , NightStrike wrote:
Took me a while, but I built a linux to win64 cross compiler using
--enable-build-with-cxx.
Thanks.
How do I verify that the compiler was
actually built with g++? ldd on the gcc binary?
That would work, yes. But do it on stage1-gcc/xgcc. The binar
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
>>> mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
Hi!
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:48:03 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 12-06-06 18:58 , Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > When --enable-build-with-cxx is enabled:
> >* The size of the build directory stage1-gcc shrinks (!) from 1.1 GiB
> > to 0.4 GiB, such that the whole build tree then occupies 2.
On 12-06-06 18:58 , Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
A bit late to the game... :-)
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:55:28 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
I have started testing the switch to C++ and there is a pile of
testing to be done. The testing itself is trivial, but the number of
targets that need to be t
Hi!
A bit late to the game... :-)
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:55:28 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I have started testing the switch to C++ and there is a pile of
> testing to be done. The testing itself is trivial, but the number of
> targets that need to be tested is large and I don't have access t
On 4/12/12 11:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The *-rtems4* toolchains I supply for RTEMS currently are hosted on
CentOS5+6, openSUSE 11.3+12.1, Fedora 15+16+17, mingw32 and cygwin,
using these OSes' native toolchains.
Other folks have reported to build these toolchains under different
*BSDs and M
On 04/12/2012 02:32 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 4/12/12 3:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Diego,
what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think
there is no need for a bootstrap?
No. I'm mostly interested in the stage 0 compiler used in those targets.
I want to deci
On 4/12/12 3:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Diego,
what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think
there is no need for a bootstrap?
No. I'm mostly interested in the stage 0 compiler used in those
targets. I want to decide what we should recommend as a minimum g+
Hello Diego,
what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think there
is no need for a bootstrap?
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Obere Lagerstr. 30, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 18 90 80 79-6
Fax : +49 89 18 90 80 79-9
E-Mail : sebas
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 14:48, David Weatherford wrote:
> Tests pass for xtensa-unknown-elf on 64-bit linux with host gcc 4.6.3.
Thanks!
Diego.
On 4/11/12 11:19 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Diego Novillo writes:
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
The sparc-sun-sol
Diego Novillo writes:
> On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>> sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
>> 9 to 11) if desired.
>
> That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
The sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap also completed
Tests pass for xtensa-unknown-elf on 64-bit linux with host gcc 4.6.3.
Dave Weatherford
we...@tensilica.com
On 4/10/12 12:28 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me time and effort. Do you have CRs
for the CC bugs?
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073578
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.d
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me time and effort. Do you have CRs
for the CC bugs?
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073578
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073575
I think that was it, b
Marc Glisse writes:
>> Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me time and effort. Do you have CRs
>> for the CC bugs?
>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073578
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073575
>
> I think that was it, but I can't remember for sure.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
Currently, they all use versions of g++ 4.4, but I could give it a try
with different versions of Sun/Oracle Studio CC.
They should all fail, versions up to 12.2 because of CC bugs (reported to
Oracle and fixed in 12.3 I think), an
Marc Glisse writes:
>> Currently, they all use versions of g++ 4.4, but I could give it a try
>> with different versions of Sun/Oracle Studio CC.
>
> They should all fail, versions up to 12.2 because of CC bugs (reported to
> Oracle and fixed in 12.3 I think), and version 12.3 at least because of
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Diego Novillo writes:
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
Currently, they
Diego Novillo writes:
> On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>> sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
>> 9 to 11) if desired.
>
> That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
Currently, they all use versions of g++ 4.4, but I
On 4/10/12 9:59 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
Tested x86_64-apple-darwin10, pdp11-aout -- both pass.
Thanks.
Diego.
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++
compilers. Thanks.
If you see a missing target that should be tested, by all means, add
it
Diego Novillo writes:
> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
> mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
> fill-in the table entries of the targets that you tested.
i386-pc-solaris2.10 just passed, although I had several special-case
options
Tested x86_64-apple-darwin10, pdp11-aout -- both pass.
paul
On 4/10/12 9:27 AM, NightStrike wrote:
Do these have to be tested as native compilers or cross compilers?
It doesn't really matter. As long as stage 1 is built with the host C++
compiler, either type of build should be fine.
Diego.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
>>> mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page an
On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
fill-in the table entries of the targets that you tested.
If you see
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
> mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
> fill-in the table entries of the targets that you tested.
>
> If you see a missing target that should be t
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 20:26, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Done for i386-unknown-freebsd10.0 (GCC 4.2 as system compiler).
> No problems.
Thanks!
Diego.
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> The testing plan is, then, to go through this table to make sure that
> we can build all of them with C++ enabled for all stages.
>
> I have created a wiki page to track testing progress:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppBuildStatus
>
> My plea for help is t
On 4/7/12 4:09 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
For *-rtems* all test results are cross with tests run on simulators.
We use a native compiler bulit from the same source for testing.
Newlib is the C library and built at the same time.
Do we need to enable any special flags from our existing configure?
For *-rtems* all test results are cross with tests run on simulators. We use a
native compiler bulit from the same source for testing. Newlib is the C library
and built at the same time.
Do we need to enable any special flags from our existing configure?
FWIW we have a few targets where the si
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 13:15, Marc Glisse wrote:
> I would expect most problems to be related to the host, and more
> specifically the compiler used to initiate the build, not so much the
> target. Or is this aiming specifically for targets that only get
> cross-compilers and thus don't have stag
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
I have started testing the switch to C++ and there is a pile of
testing to be done. The testing itself is trivial, but the number of
targets that need to be tested is large and I don't have access to all
these combinations.
Hello,
sorry for being slow
I have started testing the switch to C++ and there is a pile of
testing to be done. The testing itself is trivial, but the number of
targets that need to be tested is large and I don't have access to all
these combinations.
My proposal is to make sure that C++ builds work with:
- Primary targets
36 matches
Mail list logo
