On 12 May 2014 18:14, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/12/14 11:10, John Marino wrote:
>>
>> On 5/12/2014 18:59, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote:
1) Patch updated online as requested
2) At this exact point in time, we probably can share the files
3) I mi
On 05/12/14 11:10, John Marino wrote:
On 5/12/2014 18:59, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote:
1) Patch updated online as requested
2) At this exact point in time, we probably can share the files
3) I might debate that we should share the files - that would imply
reviewing the
On 5/12/2014 18:59, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote:
>>
>> 1) Patch updated online as requested
>> 2) At this exact point in time, we probably can share the files
>> 3) I might debate that we should share the files - that would imply
>> reviewing the existing counterpart file
On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote:
On 5/9/2014 07:26, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/03/14 01:11, John Marino wrote:
In config.gcc:
+no | gnat | single)
+ # Let these non-posix thread selections fall through if requested
Support for "gnat" as a thread model was removed in 2011. So I think
On 5/9/2014 07:26, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/03/14 01:11, John Marino wrote:
>
> In config.gcc:
>
> +no | gnat | single)
> + # Let these non-posix thread selections fall through if requested
> Support for "gnat" as a thread model was removed in 2011. So I think
> you need to remove that c
On 05/03/14 01:11, John Marino wrote:
revised patchset :
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~marino/gcc-df-target/patches/patch-dragonfly-target
revised changelog :
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~marino/gcc-df-target/changelog_entries/gcc_ChangeLog_entry.txt
revised commit msg:
http://leaf.dragonfly
On 5/8/2014 15:32, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/08/14 07:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> Anyone willing to give it an overall approval?
> I'll take a look at the rest. I mostly wanted someone else to deal with
> stddef.h :-)
Thanks Jeff!
I'm am very appreciative of that.
John
On 05/08/14 07:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Ian's approved the libiberty.h change, Joseph's approved the stddef.h
change, I've approved the libstdc++ parts.
IIUC it still needs explicit approval for the rest, e.g. trivial
adjustments to configuration stuff in libitm and libcilkrts. Are there
spec
On 3 May 2014 08:11, John Marino wrote:
> On 5/2/2014 22:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote:
>>
>>> 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important
>>> ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc)
>>
>> The default presumption should b
On 5/2/2014 22:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote:
>
>> 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important
>> ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc)
>
> The default presumption should be:
>
> * from GCC provides what it needs to
On 5/2/2014 22:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote:
>
>> 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important
>> ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc)
>
> The default presumption should be:
>
> * from GCC provides what it needs to
On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote:
> 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important
> ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc)
The default presumption should be:
* from GCC provides what it needs to provide; nothing extra is
needed and such a #include sh
On 5/2/2014 19:49, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote:
>
>> http://grok.dragonflybsd.org/xref/dragonfly/sys/sys/types.h
>
> That's definitely not correct to include in ; it defines lots of
> types outside the ISO C namespace.
Ok.
So I guess there are two problems.
1)
On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote:
> So given the track record (building itself, building base, building
> 21,000 software ports) over a couple of years I think any issues this
> could have caused would have been seen and identified by now.
These issues aren't generally obvious (given that th
On 5/2/2014 01:03, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The include of from seems risky, given that
> that's a POSIX header that typically defines various types ISO C does not
> permit to be defined in (ISO C does not have any general *_t
> namespace reservation, unlike POSIX).
>
> Have you verified tha
The include of from seems risky, given that
that's a POSIX header that typically defines various types ISO C does not
permit to be defined in (ISO C does not have any general *_t
namespace reservation, unlike POSIX).
Have you verified that if you include with -std=c90 / -std=c99
/ -std=c11
On 19 April 2014 20:39, John Marino wrote:
> Hello GCC developers,
>
> For the last few years, I have been maintaining a large set of patches
> that add support for the DragonFly BSD target and also complete Ada
> frontend support on all four major BSDs among other things. Before I
> can submit pa
17 matches
Mail list logo
