On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> When is it appropriate to make the user add -latomic to link
> their program? Perhaps different answers for fortran and C++.
> I'm guessing "always when using any atomic construct" for C.
I think we should link with --as-needed -latomic --no-as-ne
Regarding this sometimes-add--latomic(-in-testsuite) that is
revisited:
When is it appropriate to make the user add -latomic to link
their program? Perhaps different answers for fortran and C++.
I'm guessing "always when using any atomic construct" for C.
I had a grep-look in gcc/doc before aski
On 2019-03-12 7:05 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/03/19 23:01 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> +proc add_options_for_libatomic { flags } {
>>> + if { [istarget hppa*-*-hpux*] } {
>>> + return "$flags -L../../libatomic/.libs -latomic"
>>
On 12/03/19 23:01 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+proc add_options_for_libatomic { flags } {
+if { [istarget hppa*-*-hpux*] } {
+ return "$flags -L../../libatomic/.libs -latomic"
+}
It's generally inappropriate to hardcode such ../../libat
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> +proc add_options_for_libatomic { flags } {
> +if { [istarget hppa*-*-hpux*] } {
> + return "$flags -L../../libatomic/.libs -latomic"
> +}
It's generally inappropriate to hardcode such ../../libatomic/.libs paths
without making sure it'
On 11/03/19 13:54 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11/03/19 09:27 -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
On 2019-03-11 9:16 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11/03/19 14:13 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Mär 11 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
What do you think about adding the following?
--- a/libstd
On 11/03/19 09:27 -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
On 2019-03-11 9:16 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11/03/19 14:13 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Mär 11 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
What do you think about adding the following?
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
+++ b/libstdc
On 2019-03-11 9:16 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11/03/19 14:13 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Mär 11 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> What do you think about adding the following?
>>>
>>> --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
>>> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.ex
On 11/03/19 14:13 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Mär 11 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
What do you think about adding the following?
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
@@ -257,6 +257,15 @@ proc add_options_for_net_ts { flags } {
On Mär 11 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> What do you think about adding the following?
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
> @@ -257,6 +257,15 @@ proc add_options_for_net_ts { flags } {
> return $flags
> }
>
> +# Add to FLAGS a
On 09/03/19 12:46 -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
The hppa*-*-hpux* target has no builtin atomic support, so we need to
explicitly link
applications requiring atomic support against libatomic.
Okay?
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
2019-03-09 John David Anglin
PR li
The hppa*-*-hpux* target has no builtin atomic support, so we need to
explicitly link
applications requiring atomic support against libatomic.
Okay?
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
2019-03-09 John David Anglin
PR libstdc++/89461
* testsuite/20_util/shared_pt
12 matches
Mail list logo
