On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> David Malcolm writes:
>>> * I don't consider this a critical issue that cannot work without
>>> current releases. We're already working around several upstream
>>> DejaGnu issues in our codebase, and I don't consider this particular
>>> one im
David Malcolm writes:
> On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 14:13 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>
>> > On 12/04/14 15:42, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> >> David Malcolm writes:
>> >>
>> >>> assumed -fgnu89-inline until a recent upstream fix;
>> >>> see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/201
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 14:13 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>
> > On 12/04/14 15:42, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> David Malcolm writes:
> >>
> >>> assumed -fgnu89-inline until a recent upstream fix;
> >>> see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
> >>>
> >>> Re
Jeff Law writes:
> On 12/04/14 15:42, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> David Malcolm writes:
>>
>>> assumed -fgnu89-inline until a recent upstream fix;
>>> see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
>>>
>>> Remove the workaround from jit.exp that used -fgnu89-inline
>>> in favor o
On 12/05/14 12:32, Jeff Law wrote:1
fixincludes/ChangeLog:
PR other/63613
* inclhack.def (dejagnu_h_make_inline_functions_static): New fix.
* fixincl.x: Regenerate.
* tests/base/dejagnu.h: New.
OK.
No, actually not.
+fix = {
+hackname = dejagnu_h_make_inline_functions_stat
>> This is the first time I've touched the "fixincludes" directory;
>> is this the correct way to make a change here?
Well, I'd like to see it -- especially since it's your first.
Please send to this gmail account or wait until I get my GNU email this weekend.
Thanks!
>> Successfully bootstrapped
On 12/04/14 15:19, David Malcolm wrote:
assumed -fgnu89-inline until a recent upstream fix;
see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
Remove the workaround from jit.exp that used -fgnu89-inline
in favor of a fixincludes to dejagnu.h that applies the upstream fix
to a l
On 12/04/14 15:42, Rainer Orth wrote:
David Malcolm writes:
assumed -fgnu89-inline until a recent upstream fix;
see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
Remove the workaround from jit.exp that used -fgnu89-inline
in favor of a fixincludes to dejagnu.h that applies
David Malcolm writes:
> assumed -fgnu89-inline until a recent upstream fix;
> see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
>
> Remove the workaround from jit.exp that used -fgnu89-inline
> in favor of a fixincludes to dejagnu.h that applies the upstream fix
> to a local co
assumed -fgnu89-inline until a recent upstream fix;
see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
Remove the workaround from jit.exp that used -fgnu89-inline
in favor of a fixincludes to dejagnu.h that applies the upstream fix
to a local copy.
This should make it easier to
10 matches
Mail list logo