Rainer Orth writes:
> Uros Bizjak writes:
>
>> It looks to me that one part was left in libgcc/config/i386/crtfastmath.c:
>>
>> #if !defined __x86_64__ && defined __sun__ && defined __svr4__
>> #include
>> #include
>> ...
>> #endif
>
> Right, missed it because it carried no Solaris 9 comment.
Uros Bizjak writes:
> It looks to me that one part was left in libgcc/config/i386/crtfastmath.c:
>
> #if !defined __x86_64__ && defined __sun__ && defined __svr4__
> #include
> #include
> ...
> #endif
Right, missed it because it carried no Solaris 9 comment. I'll remove
it after a round of te
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Uros Bizjak writes:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
>>> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
>>> my Solaris
Andrew Hughes writes:
> - Original Message -
>> On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 09:03 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> > On 04/16/2014 12:16 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> > > * I'm removing the check from classpath. Again, I'm
>> > > uncertain if this is desirable. In the past, classpath changes were
- Original Message -
> On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 09:03 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 04/16/2014 12:16 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > > * I'm removing the check from classpath. Again, I'm
> > > uncertain if this is desirable. In the past, classpath changes were
> > > merged upstream by
David Edelsohn writes:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>
David, could you please review this comment for correctness on AIX?
>>>
>>> AIX TLS needs -pthread command line option.
>>
>> Understood, but is the reason given in that comment (__tls_get_addr in
>> libthread)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
>>> David, could you please review this comment for correctness on AIX?
>>
>> AIX TLS needs -pthread command line option.
>
> Understood, but is the reason given in that comment (__tls_get_addr in
> libthread) correct? Seems like a Solaris 9 im
David Edelsohn writes:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>> Rainer Orth writes:
>>
>>> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
>>> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
>>> my Solaris maintainership.
>>>
>>> A c
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Rainer Orth writes:
>
>> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
>> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
>> my Solaris maintainership.
>>
>> A couple of questions, though:
>>
>> *
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 09:03 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 12:16 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > * I'm removing the check from classpath. Again, I'm
> > uncertain if this is desirable. In the past, classpath changes were
> > merged upstream by one of the libjava maintainers.
>
> We s
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 04/16/2014 12:16 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> * I'm removing the check from classpath. Again, I'm
>> uncertain if this is desirable. In the past, classpath changes were
>> merged upstream by one of the libjava maintainers.
>
> We should not diverge from GNU Classpath
Rainer Orth writes:
> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
> my Solaris maintainership.
>
> A couple of questions, though:
>
> * David: In target-supports.exp (add_options_for_tls), the commen
Bruce Korb writes:
> On 04/16/14 04:16, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> I've already verified that trunk fails to build no sparc-sun-solaris2.9
>> and i386-pc-solaris2.9. Bootstraps on {i386,sparc}-*-solaris2.{10,11}
>> (and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for good measure) are in progress. I'll
>> verify that
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
>> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
>> my Solaris maintainership.
>>
>> A couple of questions, though:
>>
>> *
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> But for the Solaris 9 stuff, it crystal clear that this cannot occur on
>> Solaris 10 and up (no single-threaded case anymore since libthread.so.1
>> has been folded into libc.so.1). Ok to remove this part?
>
> OK for the "Solaris 9 - single-threaded" part.
Thanks. I'v
On 04/16/14 04:16, Rainer Orth wrote:
I've already verified that trunk fails to build no sparc-sun-solaris2.9
and i386-pc-solaris2.9. Bootstraps on {i386,sparc}-*-solaris2.{10,11}
(and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for good measure) are in progress. I'll
verify that there are no unexpected fixinclud
On 04/16/2014 12:16 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> * I'm removing the check from classpath. Again, I'm
> uncertain if this is desirable. In the past, classpath changes were
> merged upstream by one of the libjava maintainers.
We should not diverge from GNU Classpath unless there is a strong reaso
> But for the Solaris 9 stuff, it crystal clear that this cannot occur on
> Solaris 10 and up (no single-threaded case anymore since libthread.so.1
> has been folded into libc.so.1). Ok to remove this part?
OK for the "Solaris 9 - single-threaded" part.
--
Eric Botcazou
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
>> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
>> my Solaris maintainership.
>>
>> A couple of questions, though:
>>
>> *
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
>>> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
>
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>>
>> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
>> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
>
> I want it. I don't try to maintain exact copies of older
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
I want it. I don't try to maintain exact copies of older GCC
branches.
Your patch appears sep
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
> my Solaris maintainership.
>
> A couple of questions, though:
>
> * Uros: I'm removing all sse_os_su
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> * Eric: In libgcc/config/sparc/sol2-unwind.h, I've removed the Solaris 9
>> cases after verifying that the cuh_pattern's used there only occur in
>> Solaris 9 (from FCS to the latest libthread.so.1 patch), but not even
>> in Solaris 10 FCS.
>>
>> For Solaris 10,
> * Eric: In libgcc/config/sparc/sol2-unwind.h, I've removed the Solaris 9
> cases after verifying that the cuh_pattern's used there only occur in
> Solaris 9 (from FCS to the latest libthread.so.1 patch), but not even
> in Solaris 10 FCS.
>
> For Solaris 10, do you have any more details o
25 matches
Mail list logo
