On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:47:54PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > I'm not saying newlib in general, let newlib do whatever they want, but
> > I'm talking about offloading port(s) of newlib, which IMHO should provide
> > translation layer from the host headers to the offloading target functions.
Hi!
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 08:54:10 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:11:18PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib.
> >
> > That suggestion doesn't really make sense to me.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:11:18PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:44:15PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Ping.
> >
> > I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib.
>
> That suggestion
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:44:15PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Ping.
>
> I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib.
That suggestion doesn't really make sense to me. Why should newlib be
expected to follow the sam
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:44:15PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ping.
I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib.
Or are they opposed to that for whatever reason?
Jakub
