Hi gcc-patches,
I had applied the patch below to binutils-gdb, but it recently got wiped
out by a gcc -> binutils-gdb configure.ac sync. Would it be possible to
apply it to the gcc repo so this doesn't happen again?
Thanks,
Simon
On 2022-03-15 17:26, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
> From:
Add
AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS([../config])
So that just running:
$ autoreconf -vf
... does the right thing (no need to specify -I ../config).
Note: I don't have access to the gcc repo, so if this patch is approved,
can somebody push it there on my behalf? I can push it to binutils-gdb.
libibe
On 2022-04-08 10:32, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>> Ping.
>
> Patch approved - please apply.
>
> I appreciate that modifying these top level files is a bit nerve
> wracking, but I think that you have done a good job in this case. :-)
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
Thanks Nick, pushed.
Simon
Ping.
On 2022-03-29 16:04, Simon Marchi wrote:
> Ping!
>
> On 2022-03-15 17:26, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> From: Simon Marchi
>>
>> [Sending to binutils, gdb-patches and gcc-patches, since it touches the
>> top-level Makefile/configure]
>>
>> I have my debuginfod library installed in a non-standard
Ping!
On 2022-03-15 17:26, Simon Marchi wrote:
> From: Simon Marchi
>
> [Sending to binutils, gdb-patches and gcc-patches, since it touches the
> top-level Makefile/configure]
>
> I have my debuginfod library installed in a non-standard location
> (/opt/debuginfod), which requires me to set
> P
From: Simon Marchi
[Sending to binutils, gdb-patches and gcc-patches, since it touches the
top-level Makefile/configure]
I have my debuginfod library installed in a non-standard location
(/opt/debuginfod), which requires me to set
PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/debuginfod/lib/pkg-config. If I just set it
On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
>
> OK - I have pushed the patch to the mainline branches of both
> the gcc and binutils-gfdb repositories.
>
> Cheers
> Nic
On 2021-05-03 5:51 p.m., Alan Modra wrote:
> I wasn't talking about running configure, I was talking about running
> make. For example, you configure and make binutils as usual, then
> after making a change to ld/ files, run make in the ld build dir. I
> don't tend to do that myself but I do run
> Yes, I prefer the configure fix too. If we state we require C99 in
> binutils then we ought to be able to use C99..
>
> Nick, does the configure.ac change also need to go in all subdirs, to
> support people running make in say ld/ rather than running make in the
> top build dir?
For GDB, it's
On 2021-04-26 7:32 a.m., Nick Clifton via Gdb-patches wrote:> Hi Guys,
>
> Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a
> minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating
> configure.ac to reflect this ?
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/c
Bring in a few lines that are in binutils-gdb's .gitignore but not
gcc's.
Note that I don't have push access to gcc, so I would appreciate
if somebody could push it for me.
ChangeLog:
* .gitignore: Sync with binutils-gdb.
---
.gitignore | 7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff
Hi,
I'm currently squashing some bugs related to .debug_rnglists in GDB, and
I happened to notice that clang and gcc do different things when
generating rnglists with split DWARF. I'd like to know if the two
behaviors are acceptable, and therefore if we need to make GDB accept
both. Or maybe one
12 matches
Mail list logo
