On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Luis Lavena wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>> From what I read, dlfcn.h should be deleted as it is not really
>>> applicable to Windows. You should use Win32 functions
>>> li
On 9/12/2010 20:26, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> 2010/9/12 t66...@gmail.com
>
>> Maybe you have encountered pr43467?
>>
>
> I noticed that one too, but they use gold, I have to use ld. It also seems
> that the issue there is gold not properly reporting the error, and ld is,
> but in my case ld would al
Hi there;
FWIW gcc 4.6 fails much later with some undefined symbols. I gave up
on my quest to create a mingw-w64 canadian cross, for now.
Regards,
ismail
--
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and
>
> 2010/9/11 John E. / TDM
>
On 9/11/2010 12:19 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
> > , but nevertheless libelf (which
> > isn't an elf OS specific library btw) is required so that LTO works as
> > it should.
>
> Trust me, it isn't! I have never installed libelf on my build machine,
>> but LTO is enabled a
2010/9/12 t66...@gmail.com
> Maybe you have encountered pr43467?
>
I noticed that one too, but they use gold, I have to use ld. It also seems
that the issue there is gold not properly reporting the error, and ld is,
but in my case ld would also not be reporting the error.
Is there a way to get
On 12/09/2010 10:10 PM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> Creating library file: ./shlib/libgcc_s.a.tmp
> lto1.exe: internal compiler error: bytecode stream: trying to read 0
> bytes after the end of the input buffer
Maybe you have encountered pr43467?
> Please submit a full bug report,
>
2010/9/12 JonY
> --enable-lto enables the lto backend, but gcc doesn't build itself with lto
> enabled.
Exactly, I would like to build gcc itself with lto (to get a faster
compiler).
--with-build-configuration=bootstrap-lto
>>
> never seen this option is it important ?
>
Neither have I
On 9/12/2010 19:15, t66...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> On 12/09/2010 8:58 PM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
>> I am experimenting with building an optimized GCC 4.6, and discovered
>> that either
>>
>> BOOT_CFLAGS="-flto" BOOT_LFLAGS="-flto" --enable-stage1-languages=c,lto
> why not just --enable-lto ?
Hi,
On 12/09/2010 8:58 PM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> I am experimenting with building an optimized GCC 4.6, and discovered
> that either
>
> BOOT_CFLAGS="-flto" BOOT_LFLAGS="-flto" --enable-stage1-languages=c,lto
why not just --enable-lto ? what's the diff?
>
> or
>
> --with-build-configurat
Hi,
I am experimenting with building an optimized GCC 4.6, and discovered that
either
> BOOT_CFLAGS="-flto" BOOT_LFLAGS="-flto" --enable-stage1-languages=c,lto
>
or
> --with-build-configuration=bootstrap-lto
>
are broken. The second one is kind of logical for mingw, as it assumes the
presence of
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Ruben Van Boxem
wrote:
>> building. What is the easy way to differentiate MinGW-w64
>> 32bit compiler and MinGW.org 32bit compiler? Then we
>> can add ifdefs in the source codes to cater for both in the
>> future.
>>
>> The current codes are set up in a way to supp
>
> building. What is the easy way to differentiate MinGW-w64
> 32bit compiler and MinGW.org 32bit compiler? Then we
> can add ifdefs in the source codes to cater for both in the
> future.
>
> The current codes are set up in a way to support MinGW.org
> for 32bit build and MinGW-w64 64bit for 64bit
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> So far, good news from both of the x86 and x64 fronts. Will wait
>>> for the news about performance.
>>
>> I tried to use the
13 matches
Mail list logo
