> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:32:31 +1000
> From: Jonathan Gray
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:20:01AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:31:39 +1000
> > > From: Jonathan Gray
> > >
> > > Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> > > In gcc's ca
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:57:18AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:31:39PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> > In gcc's case this has been around since 4.3.
> >
> > The mesa backend for newer intel parts (i965
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:20:01AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:31:39 +1000
> > From: Jonathan Gray
> >
> > Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> > In gcc's case this has been around since 4.3.
> >
> > The mesa backend for newer intel p
On 6/21/2013 7:03 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
"ICE with base gcc" (lacking info about arch etc)
audio/mscore
For completeness, the ICE was on amd64:
[ 11%] Building CXX object
singleapp/src/CMakeFiles/qtsingleapp.dir/moc_qtsingleapplication.cxx.o
:0: internal compiler error: Segmentation
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:50:42AM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:20:01AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:31:39 +1000
> > > From: Jonathan Gray
> > >
> > > Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> > > In gcc's case
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> only for sparc64:
>> net/rtorrent
Yes, this is due to a gcc bug:
https://github.com/rakshasa/rtorrent/issues/28
On 2013/06/21 10:50, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:20:01AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:31:39 +1000
> > > From: Jonathan Gray
> > >
> > > Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> > > In gcc's case this has been around
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:03:16AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:50:42 +0200
> > From: Landry Breuil
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:20:01AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, lots of ports stuff is compiled with newer gcc versions anyway.
> >
> > Actua
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:50:42 +0200
> From: Landry Breuil
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:20:01AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > Well, lots of ports stuff is compiled with newer gcc versions anyway.
>
> Actually, not so many:
>
> $echo "select count(*) from modules where value='gcc4';"
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:31:39PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> In gcc's case this has been around since 4.3.
>
> The mesa backend for newer intel parts (i965) assumes this extension
> is present in recent versions.
>
> Below i
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:20:01AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:31:39 +1000
> > From: Jonathan Gray
> >
> > Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> > In gcc's case this has been around since 4.3.
> >
> > The mesa backend for newer intel p
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:31:39 +1000
> From: Jonathan Gray
>
> Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
> In gcc's case this has been around since 4.3.
>
> The mesa backend for newer intel parts (i965) assumes this extension
> is present in recent versions.
Sigh...
Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants.
In gcc's case this has been around since 4.3.
The mesa backend for newer intel parts (i965) assumes this extension
is present in recent versions.
Below is a diff to add support for this to our in tree gcc4. While the
i965 backend
13 matches
Mail list logo
