On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:58:24PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
We don't have faster hardware.
We think of a too slow thing in a question
A test of gcc of sh4 takes time.
When there is not a test, a package is done in about two days.
How does sh4 become targeted for the release
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
timescale.
then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least sh4 has a
workable, accessible
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
Thanks
Konstantinos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 04/26/2011 05:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klosed...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis
mar...@genesi-usa.com wrote:
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 16:41:23 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
timescale.
then please drop mips and mipsel as
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6.
Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap
compiler works around the build failure?
As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*,
wouldn't be better to use gcc-4.6 as a bootstrap
On 04/26/2011 06:01 PM, Petr Salinger wrote:
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6.
Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap
compiler works around the build failure?
As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*,
wouldn't
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6.
Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap
compiler works around the build failure?
As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*,
wouldn't be better to use gcc-4.6 as a bootstrap
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Apr 21 05:08:12 UTC 2011 (revision 172810)
Target: mipsel-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.5.2 (Debian 4.5.2-11)
Native configuration is mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/packed1.C (test for excess errors)
UNRESOLVED:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
timescale.
then please drop mips and mipsel as
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
next
two weeks before more transitions start.
Matthias Klose dixit:
At this point, pretty well after the GCC 4.6.0 release, I would like to avoid
switching more architectures to 4.5, but rather get rid of GCC 4.5 to reduce
maintenance efforts on the debian-gcc side, even before the multiarch changes
Porters side, too. I’m okay with
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc.
If you do the switch, please
Kurt Roeckx, le Tue 26 Apr 2011 21:28:57 +0200, a écrit :
Is there a reason not to switch the remaining (release) arches
(ia64, kfreebsd-*, sparc, s390)? Maybe hurd-i386 too?
There's no real reason to defer hurd-i386, as it's basically like i386,
and the key packages (glibc/hurd/gnumach)
On 04/26/2011 08:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
On 04/26/2011 09:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i386 and
18 matches
Mail list logo
