You could not me to send some source code connected with compiling under linux
--
Respectfully yours, Moskovtsev Vitaliy.
http://www.vncwin.ru
On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> feature. Thus, something has changed in the build process of gcc to include
> LD_LIBRARY_P
On Oct 24, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
> Just to satisfy my curiosity, I will build 4.5.2 on the same machine I'm now
> using to verify what I just said.
Yes. the gcc-4.5.2 tarball builds just fine on the same host using roughly the
same configuration options. I've added only --disa
On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>>
>> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
>> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>> feature. Thus, something has c
On 24 October 2012 22:07, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Well, both of these functions appear to check that the 2 blocks to
m
On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
>>> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same
On 25 October 2012 16:10, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 22:07, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Well, both of the
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on
It turns out that gcc/ebitmap.[hc] is not used.
Should we kill it?
--
Lawrence Crowl
On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>>
>> For trunk, yes, see the top entry of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html
>>
>> That isn't the case for 4.5.2, so as I sai
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> It turns out that gcc/ebitmap.[hc] is not used.
> Should we kill it?
Yes.
Diego.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> It looks like something is wrong with the CFG:
>
>|
>19 (COLD)
> / \
>/ \
> 20 (COLD) 21 (COLD)
>\ /
> \ /
> 22 (HOT)
So the partitioning is messed up, the above makes no sense. Where do
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> It looks like something is wrong with the CFG:
>>
>>|
>>19 (COLD)
>> / \
>>/ \
>> 20 (COLD) 21 (COLD)
>>\ /
>> \ /
>> 22 (HOT)
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> It looks like something is wrong with the CFG:
>>
>>|
>>19 (COLD)
>> / \
>>/ \
>> 20 (COLD) 21 (COLD)
>>\ /
>> \ /
>> 22 (HOT)
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> The official wording from SPEC is that the sources are under the same
> license as they are provided to them. It is the data files which are
> under the SPEC license.
Good. So the only things needed to reproduce the problem can be
shared: t
On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> For trunk, yes, see the top entry of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/c
16 matches
Mail list logo
