On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:57 PM, Gary Funck wrote:
> On 03/06/12 14:09:23, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> The patch is simple: the C front-end will now calls
>> c_build_pointer_type (instead of build_pointer_type), which in
>> turn calls build_pointer_type_for_mode using the right mode.
> [...]
>
> Joini
On 03/06/12 14:09:23, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> The patch is simple: the C front-end will now calls
> c_build_pointer_type (instead of build_pointer_type), which in
> turn calls build_pointer_type_for_mode using the right mode.
[...]
Joining this discussion a bit late ... I have a few questions.
Th
On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> Argh, that's an issue. We don't run the gcc test suite natively on VMS
>> because there is no port of Dejagnu (if ever doable) to VMS. We haven't
>> tried
>> to test a cross-compiler (and runn
On Mar 8, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:49 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Argh, that's an issue. We don't run the gcc test suite natively on VMS
>> because there is no port of Dejagnu (if ever doable) to VMS. We haven't
>> tried
>> to test a cross-compiler (and runn
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:49 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Argh, that's an issue. We don't run the gcc test suite natively on VMS
> because there is no port of Dejagnu (if ever doable) to VMS. We haven't tried
> to test a cross-compiler (and running the executable on the VMS host) because
> an early at
On 03/08/12 05:49, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> I haven't found a method to run only the compile tests and skip the executing
> one.
> Is it possible to do that with the gcc test suite ? That's would be very
> useful to test cross compilers.
Set the "simulator" to be /bin/true.
r~
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Argh, that's an issue. We don't run the gcc test suite natively on VMS
> because there is no port of Dejagnu (if ever doable) to VMS. We haven't tried
> to test a cross-compiler (and running the executable on the VMS host) because
> an early attempt f
On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>
The patch is simple: the C front-end will now calls c_build_pointer_type
(ins
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> >
> >> The patch is simple: the C front-end will now calls c_build_pointer_type
> >> (instead of build_pointer_type), which in turn calls
> >> buil
On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> The patch is simple: the C front-end will now calls c_build_pointer_type
>> (instead of build_pointer_type), which in turn calls
>> build_pointer_type_for_mode using the right mode.
>
> There
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> The patch is simple: the C front-end will now calls c_build_pointer_type
> (instead of build_pointer_type), which in turn calls
> build_pointer_type_for_mode using the right mode.
There seem to be quite a lot of build_pointer_type calls in the C fron
11 matches
Mail list logo