On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
> >>> Ok for 4.7, RMs should decide about 4.6.1.
> >>
> >> Applied, thanks. It would be nice to get into 4.6 (even 4.6.1) since
> >> otherwise install.texi which claims --disable-symvers as a workaround
> >> lies :-)
> >
> > O
Richard Guenther writes:
>>> Ok for 4.7, RMs should decide about 4.6.1.
>>
>> Applied, thanks. It would be nice to get into 4.6 (even 4.6.1) since
>> otherwise install.texi which claims --disable-symvers as a workaround
>> lies :-)
>
> Ok.
Just to make no mistake: ok for 4.6.0 or ok for 4.6.1?
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> On 03/21/2011 12:34 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Prompted by PR bootstrap/48135, I found that only libstdc++-v3 honors
>>> --disable-symvers. The following patch corrects this, but also notices
>>> again the mess we'v
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 03/21/2011 12:34 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Prompted by PR bootstrap/48135, I found that only libstdc++-v3 honors
>> --disable-symvers. The following patch corrects this, but also notices
>> again the mess we've created by having at least 3 different sets of
>> checks f
On 03/21/2011 12:34 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Prompted by PR bootstrap/48135, I found that only libstdc++-v3 honors
--disable-symvers. The following patch corrects this, but also notices
again the mess we've created by having at least 3 different sets of
checks for symbol versioning, each with its
Prompted by PR bootstrap/48135, I found that only libstdc++-v3 honors
--disable-symvers. The following patch corrects this, but also notices
again the mess we've created by having at least 3 different sets of
checks for symbol versioning, each with its own variations ;-( But this
is not the time
