Paolo,
Mike Stump's view was that darwin1 and darwin2 should be
ignored since they can't build FSF gcc for other reasons.
The idea was to fix these cases for the foreseeable future
by using darwin[921]* as the match. I also tested the patch
with a build of i686-apple-darwin9 and the results are
>Mike Stump's recommendation on this issue is to use the match
> darwin[912]* to make sure that this is captured for darwin9 through
> darwin29. The idea is to not match darwin3 through darwin8. This usage
> is present in several places...
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg0033
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:35:36AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> >I see one place where breakage may have occured...
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/gcc-4_4-branch/configure.ac?r1=144881&r2=144887
> >
> > --- trunk/configure.ac 2009/03/16 13:23:13 14
Jack Howarth wrote:
>I see one place where breakage may have occured...
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/gcc-4_4-branch/configure.ac?r1=144881&r2=144887
>
> --- trunk/configure.ac2009/03/16 13:23:13 144881
> +++ trunk/configure.ac2009/03/16 17:02:02 144887
> @@
