Alan Modra wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 08:05:29AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Alan Modra via Gcc-patches wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
index 97d6f3863cb..cc3b1b6d666 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ stru
Alan Modra wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 08:05:29AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Alan Modra via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Guys,
On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
OK - I have pus
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 08:05:29AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Alan Modra via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote:
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > > > I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
> > >
>
Alan Modra via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Guys,
On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
OK - I have pushed the patch to the mainline branches of both
the gcc and binutils-gdb repositorie
On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
>
> OK - I have pushed the patch to the mainline branches of both
> the gcc and binutils-gdb repositories.
Thanks Nick! Incident
On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
>
> OK - I have pushed the patch to the mainline branches of both
> the gcc and binutils-gfdb repositories.
>
> Cheers
> Nic
Hi Guys,
On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
OK - I have pushed the patch to the mainline branches of both
the gcc and binutils-gfdb repositories.
Cheers
Nick
On 2021-05-03 5:51 p.m., Alan Modra wrote:
> I wasn't talking about running configure, I was talking about running
> make. For example, you configure and make binutils as usual, then
> after making a change to ld/ files, run make in the ld build dir. I
> don't tend to do that myself but I do run
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:47:15AM -0400, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > Yes, I prefer the configure fix too. If we state we require C99 in
> > binutils then we ought to be able to use C99..
> >
> > Nick, does the configure.ac change also need to go in all subdirs, to
> > support people running make in
> "Simon" == Simon Marchi via Gcc-patches writes:
Simon> For GDB, it's not supported to run gdb/configure directly, you need to
Simon> use the top-level configure. Is it supported from some of the other
Simon> projects in the repo?
It can be done sometimes but I think it isn't really a scen
> Yes, I prefer the configure fix too. If we state we require C99 in
> binutils then we ought to be able to use C99..
>
> Nick, does the configure.ac change also need to go in all subdirs, to
> support people running make in say ld/ rather than running make in the
> top build dir?
For GDB, it's
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:48:00PM -0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> On 4/30/2021 12:36 PM, Simon Marchi via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On 2021-04-26 7:32 a.m., Nick Clifton via Gdb-patches wrote:> Hi Guys,
> > >Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a
> > >
On 4/30/2021 12:36 PM, Simon Marchi via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 2021-04-26 7:32 a.m., Nick Clifton via Gdb-patches wrote:> Hi Guys,
Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a
minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating
configure.ac to reflect this
On 2021-04-26 7:32 a.m., Nick Clifton via Gdb-patches wrote:> Hi Guys,
>
> Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a
> minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating
> configure.ac to reflect this ?
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/c
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021, Nick Clifton via Binutils wrote:
> > and instead AC_PROG_CC enables C11 mode if supported. (So moving to the
> > latest Autoconf and Automake releases would supersede this change.)
>
> Makes sense. Is changing to autoconf 2.70 something that is planned for the
> near future
Hi Joseph,
This isn't an objection, since upgrading auto* for the toolchain can be
complicated, but note that AC_PROG_CC_C99 is obsolete in Autoconf 2.70
Ah - in which case changing to an about-to-be-obsolete macro is probably
a bad idea.
and instead AC_PROG_CC enables C11 mode if support
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:32 PM Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Nick Clifton via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a
> > minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating
> > configure.ac to refle
On 26 Apr 2021 19:32, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Nick Clifton via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a
> > minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating
> > configure.ac to reflect this ?
>
> This isn't an obj
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Nick Clifton via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a
> minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating
> configure.ac to reflect this ?
This isn't an objection, since upgrading auto* for the t
19 matches
Mail list logo
