On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:50 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 26/04/21 09:17 -0400, David Edelsohn via Libstdc++ wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:19 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >> On 23/04/21 20:54 -0400, David Edelsohn via Libstdc++ wrote:
> >> >Some ports require libatomic for atomic o
On 26/04/21 09:17 -0400, David Edelsohn via Libstdc++ wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:19 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/04/21 20:54 -0400, David Edelsohn via Libstdc++ wrote:
>Some ports require libatomic for atomic operations, at least for some
>data types and widths. The libstdc++ testsui
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:19 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 23/04/21 20:54 -0400, David Edelsohn via Libstdc++ wrote:
> >Some ports require libatomic for atomic operations, at least for some
> >data types and widths. The libstdc++ testsuite previously was updated
> >to link against libatomic, b
On 23/04/21 20:54 -0400, David Edelsohn via Libstdc++ wrote:
Some ports require libatomic for atomic operations, at least for some
data types and widths. The libstdc++ testsuite previously was updated
to link against libatomic, but the search path was hard-coded to
something that is not always c
On 4/23/2021 6:54 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
Some ports require libatomic for atomic operations, at least for some
data types and widths. The libstdc++ testsuite previously was updated
to link against libatomic, but the search path was hard-coded to
something that is not always
Some ports require libatomic for atomic operations, at least for some
data types and widths. The libstdc++ testsuite previously was updated
to link against libatomic, but the search path was hard-coded to
something that is not always correct, and the shared library search
path was not set.
The se
