On 07/30/2016 02:10 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> What about my suggestion of forcing GCC to use the gnulib functions by
> temporarily removing the system-wide functions? Would that be
> equivalent testing to building on a host that requires the libiberty
> version of a function?
I don't think
On 07/31/2016 11:50 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Oh well, Ayush does not have access to different hosts, thus I
> guess it is better that he focuses his limited time on functions that
> he can test. There are plenty of functions that are both in gnulib and
> libiberty but not in glibc.
>
My
On 31 July 2016 at 23:39, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> > Building for different targets is fairly irrelevant here; the issue is
>> > building for different hosts, which is harder.
>>
>> What about my suggestion of forcing GCC to use the gnulib function
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > Building for different targets is fairly irrelevant here; the issue is
> > building for different hosts, which is harder.
>
> What about my suggestion of forcing GCC to use the gnulib functions by
> temporarily removing the system-wide functions
On 29 July 2016 at 23:10, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> >> GCC can run on other systems besides OSX and GNU/Linux, how can you
>> >> test that your change does not break anything on those systems?
>> >>
>> > Well I have access to these two systems only.
On 30 July 2016 at 03:40, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> >> GCC can run on other systems besides OSX and GNU/Linux, how can you
>> >> test that your change does not break anything on those systems?
>> >>
>> > Well I have access to these two systems only.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> GCC can run on other systems besides OSX and GNU/Linux, how can you
> >> test that your change does not break anything on those systems?
> >>
> > Well I have access to these two systems only. How would you suggest I
> > test my patches on all po
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Also, are the files in gnulib and libiberty semantically identical?
> The wiki page does not say anything about this. How did you check
> this?
The question is not whether they are semantically identical, but whether
moving to the gnulib version
On 26 July 2016 at 19:21, ayush goel wrote:
> On 26 July 2016 at 3:38:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> (lopeziba...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On 25 July 2016 at 18:18, ayush goel wrote:
>> > On top of the previously filed patch for importing gnulib (the link
>> > isn’t available on the archive yet, however
On 26 July 2016 at 14:51, ayush goel wrote:
> On 26 July 2016 at 3:38:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> (lopeziba...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Why the change from "fnmatch.h" to ?
>
> Gnulib doesn’t contain a header for fnmatch. It itself relies on
> glib’c fnmatch.h
I see two modules here:
https://www.gn
On 26 July 2016 at 3:38:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
(lopeziba...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 25 July 2016 at 18:18, ayush goel wrote:
> > On top of the previously filed patch for importing gnulib (the link
> > isn’t available on the archive yet, however this contains some of the
> > information:
> > htt
On 25 July 2016 at 18:18, ayush goel wrote:
> On top of the previously filed patch for importing gnulib (the link
> isn’t available on the archive yet, however this contains some of the
> information:
> http://gcc.1065356.n5.nabble.com/Importing-gnulib-into-the-gcc-tree-td1275807.html#a1279573)
>
The link for that patch importing gnulib inside gcc’s tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01302.html
Apologies for the confusion.
On 25 July 2016 at 10:48:20 PM, ayush goel (ayushgoel1...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> On top of the previously filed patch for importing gnulib (the link isn
On top of the previously filed patch for importing gnulib (the link
isn’t available on the archive yet, however this contains some of the
information:
http://gcc.1065356.n5.nabble.com/Importing-gnulib-into-the-gcc-tree-td1275807.html#a1279573)
now I have replaced another function from libiberty wi
14 matches
Mail list logo
