On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 2. I have not regenerated {gcc,cpplib}.pot, or sent them off to the
> translation project. Joseph, would you please do that, at your convenience?
Regeneration done. I'll submit the next 4.2 snapshot to the TP.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All the bugs with "4.2" in their summaries ("[4.1/4.2 Regression]" etc.)
need to have it changed to "4.2/4.3". I don't know the procedure for
this, but perhaps it needs adding to the branching checklist.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 12:58 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> All the bugs with "4.2" in their summaries ("[4.1/4.2 Regression]" etc.)
> need to have it changed to "4.2/4.3". I don't know the procedure for
> this, but perhaps it needs adding to the branching checklist.
As I understand it, it invo
On Darwin PPC and intel, we don't have proper libffi and
libjava support at 64-bit. However we would still like to build
the other compilers with multilib support. I noticed that RedHat
was building their gcc 4.1.1 with the following
# Hack to avoid building multilib libjava
perl -pi -e 's/
I have an approved patch that factors code that is common to all
builtin_function implementations
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00195.html,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg01499.html).
I have just updated and tested it. Is this a good time to commit?
Best Regards,
R
