On 08.10.24 21:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 20:02, Frank Scheiner wrote:
On 08.10.24 20:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 18:43, Frank Scheiner wrote:
This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
running the testsuite (based on
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 20:02, Frank Scheiner wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08.10.24 20:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 18:43, Frank Scheiner wrote:
> >>
> >> This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
> >> running the testsuite (based on
> >> 236116068151bbc72a
On 08.10.24 20:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 18:43, Frank Scheiner wrote:
This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
running the testsuite (based on
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-J
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 18:43, Frank Scheiner wrote:
>
> This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
> running the testsuite (based on
> 236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac):
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-June/817268.html
>
> For comparison, t
This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
running the testsuite (based on
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-June/817268.html
For comparison, the same with just
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac:
http