Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Checking multilib configuration for libgcc...
> Configuring in ia16-elf/libgcc
> [snip]
> checking whether decimal floating point is supported... no
> *** Configuration ia16-unknown-elf not supported
> make[1]: *** [configure-target-libgcc] Fe
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 11:28:29PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I've just committed the approved top level libgcc patches, which
> create a top level "libgcc" directory.
I updated to revision 120997 for my Intel x86 16-bit port, to find:
Checking multilib configuration for libgcc...
Confi
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 11:28:29PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Hopefully, this will not have any great impact on much of anyone.
It does. It fixed PR target/30370 (libgcc failing to build on
powerpc-unknown-eabispe) on mainline.
--
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:19:17PM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 23:28 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > Right now the libgcc configuration is completely tied up with
> > gcc/Makefile. As parts of the configuration process move from
> > gcc/config/ to libgcc/config/ (or l
Andrew Pinski wrote:
We should also be very careful not to introduce differences between
native and cross compilers. So, we should have no run-time tests, no
tests that look at /proc, headers in /usr/include, etc.
Right--I was really only suggesting tests that can be done at
compile-time. Perh
>
> > We should also be very careful not to introduce differences between
> > native and cross compilers. So, we should have no run-time tests, no
> > tests that look at /proc, headers in /usr/include, etc.
>
> Right--I was really only suggesting tests that can be done at
> compile-time. Perhap
> We should also be very careful not to introduce differences between
> native and cross compilers. So, we should have no run-time tests, no
> tests that look at /proc, headers in /usr/include, etc.
Right--I was really only suggesting tests that can be done at
compile-time. Perhaps there isn't a
Ben Elliston wrote:
> So I take it that at this stage we've not commenced the process of
> having libgcc's configury run autoconf tests on the target compiler?
> (Rather than having to hardwire most target details into the t-* files?)
> Any objections to starting down this path?
We should also be
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 23:28 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Right now the libgcc configuration is completely tied up with
> gcc/Makefile. As parts of the configuration process move from
> gcc/config/ to libgcc/config/ (or libgcc's configure.ac), we'll
> be untangling them. Eventually, it shoul
I've just committed the approved top level libgcc patches, which
create a top level "libgcc" directory.
Hopefully, this will not have any great impact on much of anyone.
The only change I know of is that if you run "make all-gcc", you will
no longer have enough to test C. You need at least "make
10 matches
Mail list logo
