On Jul 10 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Testing compilation together with current glibc with glibc's
>> > build-many-glibcs.py. OK to commit (mainline and active release
>> > branches) if that passes?
>>
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 27 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > Testing compilation together with current glibc with glibc's
> > build-many-glibcs.py. OK to commit (mainline and active release
> > branches) if that passes?
>
> This still doesn't work on the gcc-6-branch:
On Jun 27 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Testing compilation together with current glibc with glibc's
> build-many-glibcs.py. OK to commit (mainline and active release
> branches) if that passes?
This still doesn't work on the gcc-6-branch:
In file included from ../../../libjava/prims.cc:26:0:
..
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
>> Current glibc no longer gives the ucontext_t type the tag struct
>> ucontext, to conform with POSIX namespace rules. This requires
>> various linux-unwind.h files in libgcc, that were previously u
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Current glibc no longer gives the ucontext_t type the tag struct
> ucontext, to conform with POSIX namespace rules. This requires
> various linux-unwind.h files in libgcc, that were previously using
> struct ucontext, to be fixed to use ucontext_t instea
Current glibc no longer gives the ucontext_t type the tag struct
ucontext, to conform with POSIX namespace rules. This requires
various linux-unwind.h files in libgcc, that were previously using
struct ucontext, to be fixed to use ucontext_t instead. This is
similar to the removal of the struct s
