On 2016-01-11, at 10:56 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2016-01-11 8:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> In any case, we have no_c99_libc_has_function on hpux and everything on
> linux. So, I
> don't think testing with f
On 14/01/16 15:02, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Unfortunately c99_functions is a very wide net. For instance, newlib supports
the ceill, but doesn't support
wscanf_s nor any bounds checking function I think.
wscanf_s is not c99
(it is in the optional annex k of c11, which is
likely to be remov
On 11/01/16 16:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:11:21PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
I tested a similar version on my side. It just makes the test become
UNSUPPORTED for arm/aarch64 + newlib. They used to pass, though.
Is anything bad on that? The test tests functions that
On 11/01/16 16:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:11:21PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
I tested a similar version on my side. It just makes the test become
UNSUPPORTED for arm/aarch64 + newlib. They used to pass, though.
Is anything bad on that? The test tests functions that
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:11:21PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> I tested a similar version on my side. It just makes the test become
> UNSUPPORTED for arm/aarch64 + newlib. They used to pass, though.
Is anything bad on that? The test tests functions that newlib does not
implement, so it is not
On 11 January 2016 at 16:56, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2016-01-11 8:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> In any case, we have no_c99_libc_has_function on hpux and everything on
> linux. So, I
> don't think testi
On 2016-01-11 8:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
In any case, we have no_c99_libc_has_function on hpux and everything on linux.
So, I
don't think testing with function_c99_misc on hppa will show any difference.
Okay with function_c99
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> In any case, we have no_c99_libc_has_function on hpux and everything on
> >> linux. So, I
> >> don't think testing with function_c99_misc on hppa will show any
> >> difference.
> >>
> >> Okay with function_c99_misc?
> >
> > Ok
On 9 January 2016 at 17:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:52:21PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
>> On 2015-12-30, at 6:46 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, John David Anglin wrote:
>> >
>> >> The attach change fixes PR middle-end/68743 on hppa*-*-hpux*. In
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:52:21PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2015-12-30, at 6:46 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, John David Anglin wrote:
> >
> >> The attach change fixes PR middle-end/68743 on hppa*-*-hpux*. In
> >> compiling
> >> c99_functions.c in libgfortran,
On 2015-12-30, at 6:46 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, John David Anglin wrote:
>
>> The attach change fixes PR middle-end/68743 on hppa*-*-hpux*. In compiling
>> c99_functions.c in libgfortran, floor ((double)x) was transformed to
>> floorf(x) but
>> floorf is not available on
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, John David Anglin wrote:
> The attach change fixes PR middle-end/68743 on hppa*-*-hpux*. In compiling
> c99_functions.c in libgfortran, floor ((double)x) was transformed to
> floorf(x) but
> floorf is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The change simply adds a
> libc_has_fun
12 matches
Mail list logo
