On 01/10/2012 03:06 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Richard Henderson writes:
>
>> On 01/04/2012 11:27 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> [libgfortran, libitm] Link with -shared-libgcc
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01382.html
>>>
>>> This will need a fortran resp. libitm maintainer.
>
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 01/04/2012 11:27 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> [libgfortran, libitm] Link with -shared-libgcc
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01382.html
>>
>> This will need a fortran resp. libitm maintainer.
>
> Does the following alleviate the need for -sha
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 01/04/2012 11:27 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> [libgfortran, libitm] Link with -shared-libgcc
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01382.html
>>
>> This will need a fortran resp. libitm maintainer.
>
> Does the following alleviate the need for -sha
On 01/05/2012 08:30 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Do all targets support sth like weak relocs?
Nearly. Those that don't probably don't pass the pthreads requirement.
r~
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 11:27 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> [libgfortran, libitm] Link with -shared-libgcc
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01382.html
>>
>> This will need a fortran resp. libitm maintainer.
>
> Does the follow
On 01/04/2012 11:27 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> [libgfortran, libitm] Link with -shared-libgcc
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01382.html
>
> This will need a fortran resp. libitm maintainer.
Does the following alleviate the need for -shared-libgcc for libitm?
r~
diff --
