On 05/12/14 22:40, Jeff Law wrote: > On 12/05/14 15:34, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: >>> As I've tried to explain, that is IMHO wrong though. >>> If what you are after is the -B stuff too, then perhaps: >>> ... >> >> Sorry but it does not work: > BTW, thanks for working with Jakub on this. We're going to be getting a > Darwin box for Jakub and other folks in the Red Hat team to use when the need > arises to dig into these kind of issues. > > However, until that box arrives and is setup, this kind of iteration is the > only way he can test Darwin stuff. > > Jeff >
Indeed I feel especially bad in these scenarios where patches are suggested for a patch I submitted and are causing you folks problems. I really do not want to do that. So many architectures for GCC, so very few resources. Hopefully as Jeff indicates, this will be sorted soon. Again from a libcc1 point of view, as long as we have the .so built on all configurations, that is what matters. I have not chipped into these threads as I have nothing to say/recommend about darwin architectures :( I do read them all, though. Cheers, Phil
