On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> No gcc/ prefix in the ChangeLog file of the gcc/ directory. See other
> entries.
Fixed. Sorry about that.
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
> 2011-04-04 Satoru Takabayashi
> Paul Pluzhnikov
>
> * gcc/doc/install.texi (Configuration): Document
> --with-linker-hash-style.
> * gcc/gcc.c (init_spec): Handle LINKER_HASH_STYLE.
> * gcc/config.in: Add LINKER_HASH_STYLE.
> * gcc/configure.ac: Add --
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>>> I wonder why this is a GCC specific patch and not a linker patch. Why
>>> not change the linker(s) to accept such configure option that changes it
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>> I wonder why this is a GCC specific patch and not a linker patch. Why
>> not change the linker(s) to accept such configure option that changes its
>> default behavior?
>
> It is traditionally gcc which tells
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:02:44AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Otherwise if people link with ld they suddenly get different hash-style.
> > That looks wrong to me.
>
> That turns out not to be the case. Both gold and GNU ld accept the same
> set of --hash-style options.
And we keep tellin
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way. I cannot really
express any opinion abou
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>> Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way. I cannot really
>>> express any opinion about the desirability of the feature, but
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way. I cannot really
>> express any opinion about the desirability of the feature, but the
>> configure syntax is certainly okay with me, and I gather
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 18:45, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/09/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> >> > Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
> >> >
> >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg0024
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 18:45, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
>> > Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
>> >
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html
>> >
>> > CC'ing the rest of build system maintai
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> > Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html
> >
> > CC'ing the rest of build system maintainers.
>
> None of the build system maintainers can approve g
On 05/09/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html
CC'ing the rest of build system maintainers.
None of the build system maintainers can approve gcc.c changes. And
those can be approved only by either a global
Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html
CC'ing the rest of build system maintainers.
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>> When pinging,
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Thanks for your comments.
> When pinging, please include the URL of the patch being pinged and CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html
> relevant maintainers (in this case, build system maintainers).
All of them? [I've
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
>
> This is getting ridiculous. Would someone please accept the patch,
> tell me what to fix in it to make it acceptable, or explain why it is
> a bad idea?
When pinging, please include the URL of the patch being pinged and CC
Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
This is getting ridiculous. Would someone please accept the patch,
tell me what to fix in it to make it acceptable, or explain why it is
a bad idea?
Thanks!
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> Ping? Ping? Ping?
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM, P
Ping? Ping? Ping?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> Ping? Ping?
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov
> wrote:
>> Ping?
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
Ping? Ping?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov
wrote:
> Ping?
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
Ping?
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Matthias Klose wrote:
...
>> Linux distributions pass more than that by default to the linker, e.g.
>> --as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. Wouldn't it make more sense to
>> add
>> something like --with-l
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04.04.2011 20:17, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Several Linux distributions (e.g. Fedora) carry local patches that turn
> > on --hash-style=gnu for all links.
> >
> > Attached is a proposed patch (originally by Satoru Takabayashi) th
On 04.04.2011 20:17, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Several Linux distributions (e.g. Fedora) carry local patches that turn
> on --hash-style=gnu for all links.
>
> Attached is a proposed patch (originally by Satoru Takabayashi) that makes
> default hash style a configure option.
>
> Te
Rainer Orth writes:
> ppluzhni...@google.com (Paul Pluzhnikov) writes:
>
>> Several Linux distributions (e.g. Fedora) carry local patches that turn
>> on --hash-style=gnu for all links.
>
> Shouldn't configure verify that the linker used actually understands
> that option?
No, I don't think so.
ppluzhni...@google.com (Paul Pluzhnikov) writes:
> Several Linux distributions (e.g. Fedora) carry local patches that turn
> on --hash-style=gnu for all links.
Shouldn't configure verify that the linker used actually understands
that option?
Rainer
--
--
Greetings,
Several Linux distributions (e.g. Fedora) carry local patches that turn
on --hash-style=gnu for all links.
Attached is a proposed patch (originally by Satoru Takabayashi) that makes
default hash style a configure option.
Tested by doing native bootstrap and verifying that no --hash-st
24 matches
Mail list logo
