> On 21 Jun 2019, at 13:49, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> I should have been clearer about Darwin:
>
> collect2 is required because it wraps the calling of lto-wrapper and ld.
>
> FWIW Darwin also passes all the “-frepo” testcases, however, I’m not
> aware of anyone actually
> > >> I should have been clearer about Darwin:
> > >>
> > >> collect2 is required because it wraps the calling of lto-wrapper and ld.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW Darwin also passes all the “-frepo” testcases, however, I’m not
> > >> aware of anyone actually
> > >> using case #2 from Jonathan’s post.
> > >
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:50 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
> > On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:40, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > On 6/21/19 12:34 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/2
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:40, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/21/19 12:34 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/20/19 9:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 P
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:40, Martin Liška wrote:
> Yes, I would be fine to deprecate that for GCC 10.1
Would it be appropriate to issue a warning in GCC 10.x if the option is used?
I think in most cases the "fix" would be to simply remove the -frepo
option from your makefiles (or other build sys
On 6/21/19 12:34 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/20/19 9:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška"
wrote:
> On 6/20/19 4:21 P
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 6/20/19 9:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška"
>>> wrote:
On 6/20/19 4:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20,
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/20/19 9:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška"
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/20/19 4:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
On 6/20/19 9:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška" wrote:
>> On 6/20/19 4:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to
On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška" wrote:
>On 6/20/19 4:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to
>remove
>>> support for repo files (tlink). If I'm
On 6/20/19 4:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to remove
>> support for repo files (tlink). If I'm correctly it's only used by AIX
>> target. Would it be possible to dro
> On 20 Jun 2019, at 15:21, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to remove
>> support for repo files (tlink). If I'm correctly it's only used by AIX
>> target. Would it be
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to remove
> support for repo files (tlink). If I'm correctly it's only used by AIX
> target. Would it be possible to drop that for the future? Is it even
> used?
AIX cur
Hi.
In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to remove
support for repo files (tlink). If I'm correctly it's only used by AIX
target. Would it be possible to drop that for the future? Is it even
used?
Thank you,
Martin
14 matches
Mail list logo
