On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 09:05 +, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
> > bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
> > one is my preference I guess. The current state
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
> bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
> one is my preference I guess. The current state breaks e.g. ccache.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/202
Hi!
I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
one is my preference I guess. The current state breaks e.g. ccache.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610285.html
- PR108464 - P1 - file-prefix-map
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 04:05:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I'm attaching 3 so far just compile tested patches.
So far successfully bootstrapped/regtested the first and third patches,
both on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
Jakub
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 01:46:20PM -0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This does cause a change of behaviour if users were previously relying upon
> > symlinks or absolute paths not being resolved.
>
> I'm not too worried about this scenario.
As mentioned in the PR, this patch breaks
