On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Steven> Probably you mean the revised patch here:
> Steven> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
>
> Steven> The patch look OK to me but I can't approve it.
>
> I'm sorry about the delay on this.
>
> The libcpp bits are ok.
>
Steven> Probably you mean the revised patch here:
Steven> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
Steven> The patch look OK to me but I can't approve it.
I'm sorry about the delay on this.
The libcpp bits are ok.
I can't approve the other parts.
I think new configure options sho
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> Ping, again
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
Probably you mean the revised patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
The patch look OK to me but I can't approve it.
Technically you're fi
Ping, again
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
--
Google UK Limited | Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London SW1W 9TQ | Registered in England Number: 3977902
Ping, again.
On 1 October 2012 16:56, Simon Baldwin wrote:
>
> Ping, again.
>
>
> On 21 September 2012 12:45, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > Ping.
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
> >
> > Full text of previous message and context at URL above. No comments
> > or cod
Tom, this is mainly a libcpp change. Would you mind taking a look?
Thanks,
Ollie
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
>
> Ping, again.
>
>
> On 21 September 2012 12:45, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > Ping.
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
> >
> > Fu
Ping, again.
On 21 September 2012 12:45, Simon Baldwin wrote:
>
> Ping.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
>
> Full text of previous message and context at URL above. No comments
> or code changes since. Patch description left below for convenience.
>
> >
> > Add flags
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00459.html
Full text of previous message and context at URL above. No comments
or code changes since. Patch description left below for convenience.
>
> Add flags to disable system header canonicalizations.
>
> Libcpp may canonicalize system he
On 5 September 2012 16:01, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>...
>
> I don't know if it's a strong reason, but the problem seems to be one
> that is characteristic of a specific invocation of a compiler, rather
> than characteristic of the compiler in general. The same compiler may
> be invoked in multipl
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> On 5 September 2012 16:03, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
>>> Add a configure option to disable system header canonicalizations.
>>
>> Why should this be a configure option rather than a comma
On 5 September 2012 16:03, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
>> Add a configure option to disable system header canonicalizations.
>
> Why should this be a configure option rather than a command-line option?
The underlying problem is a niche one, like
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> Add a configure option to disable system header canonicalizations.
Why should this be a configure option rather than a command-line option?
Ian
> Libcpp may canonicalize system header paths with lrealpath() for diagnostics,
> dependency o
Add a configure option to disable system header canonicalizations.
Libcpp may canonicalize system header paths with lrealpath() for diagnostics,
dependency output, and similar. If gcc is held in a symlink farm the
canonicalized paths may be meaningless to users, and will also conflict with
build
13 matches
Mail list logo
