Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553321.html
On 06/09/2020 17.23, Armin Brauns wrote:
> There were some differences between the actual code in do_spec_1, its
> source comment, and the documentation in doc/invoke.texi. These should
> now be resolved.
>
On 01/10/2020 18.04, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch is a proposal to add an if-exists-then-else
> builtin spec function, which tests for the existence of
> a file and returns one or the other of the following
> arguments depending on the result of the test.
>
Hello,
could you pleas
On 06/09/2020 17.23, Armin Brauns wrote:
> There were some differences between the actual code in do_spec_1, its
> source comment, and the documentation in doc/invoke.texi. These should
> now be resolved.
PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553321.html
There were some differences between the actual code in do_spec_1, its
source comment, and the documentation in doc/invoke.texi. These should
now be resolved.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gcc.c: document %T spec file directive
* doc/invoke.texi:
remove %p, %P spec file directives
On 02/10/2020 19.20, Armin Brauns wrote:
> On 06/09/2020 17.23, Armin Brauns wrote:
>> There were some differences between the actual code in do_spec_1, its
>> source comment, and the documentation in doc/invoke.texi. These should
>> now be resolved.
> PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patche
On 15/10/2020 10.11, Armin Brauns wrote:
> On 02/10/2020 19.20, Armin Brauns wrote:
>> On 06/09/2020 17.23, Armin Brauns wrote:
>>> There were some differences between the actual code in do_spec_1, its
>>> source comment, and the documentation in doc/invoke.texi. These should
>>> now be resolved.
>