On 12 February 2012 23:43, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> My 2c - I heartily recommend this patch.
>> Thanks. I'm a bit surprised noone else has commented - I hoped this
>> would be a no-brainer, or at least get some constructive feedback for
>> further impr
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> My 2c - I heartily recommend this patch.
> Thanks. I'm a bit surprised noone else has commented - I hoped this
> would be a no-brainer, or at least get some constructive feedback for
> further improvement.
One reason surely is that the diffs for chang
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>* doc/install.texi (Prerequisites): Suggest building GMP, MPFR and
>MPC as part of GCC before describing configuring with --with-gmp etc.
>(Installing GCC: Configuration): State that --with-gmp etc. aren't
>needed if source
On 31 January 2012 15:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Can we at least recommend using the OS vendors versions of the
>> libraries in case they match our minimum (not recommended) version
>> requirements? Is our in-tree build support robust enough against
>> newer/older OS vendor installed copies?
>
On 30 January 2012 09:52, Richard Guenther wrote:
> If we discourage from separately installing these libraries, who will do
> the required in-tree-bootstrap testing before a release on the Hosts
> we care for?
My patch doesn't actually discourage it (although my new wiki page
does, as it's meant
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 20 January 2012 23:08, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>>
>>> My 2c - I heartily recommend this patch.
>>
>> Thanks. I'm a bit surprised noone else has commented - I hoped this
>> would
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 20 January 2012 23:08, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>
>> My 2c - I heartily recommend this patch.
>
> Thanks. I'm a bit surprised noone else has commented - I hoped this
> would be a no-brainer, or at least get some constructive feedback for
>
On 20 January 2012 23:08, Quentin Neill wrote:
>
> My 2c - I heartily recommend this patch.
Thanks. I'm a bit surprised noone else has commented - I hoped this
would be a no-brainer, or at least get some constructive feedback for
further improvement.
> May I suggest updating
> /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/h
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Ping.
>
> I think this is a useful improvement to the docs and could prevent the
> most commonly-encountered bootstrap failure for inexpert users
> building GCC.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
>
> On 30 December 2011 13:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On
Ping.
I think this is a useful improvement to the docs and could prevent the
most commonly-encountered bootstrap failure for inexpert users
building GCC.
OK for trunk?
On 30 December 2011 13:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 December 2011 00:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The most frequently asked
On 22 December 2011 00:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The most frequently asked question on gcc-help, and a frequently
> reported "bug" in bugzilla, is
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#configure_suffix
>
> It is almost always caused by installing libgmp.so etc. in a
> non-standard location and not using
Here's the new wiki page I've started:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/InstallingGCC
On 22 December 2011 00:36, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> It is almost always caused by installing libgmp.so etc. in a
>> non-standard location and not using ldconfig, DT_RUNPATH,
>> $LD_LIBRARY_PATH or some other method to tell the dynamic linker how
>> t
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It is almost always caused by installing libgmp.so etc. in a
> non-standard location and not using ldconfig, DT_RUNPATH,
> $LD_LIBRARY_PATH or some other method to tell the dynamic linker how
> to find them. The current installation docs mention --wit
14 matches
Mail list logo
