http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:00:57
UTC ---
Created attachment 22355
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22355
first spin of trial patch
How about if we make building the plugin conditional on having c99 available?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #5 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:03:50
UTC ---
> (Don't forget to regenerate the two configure files,
And run autoheader in lto-plugin, I should have added there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #7 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:21:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > How about if we make building the plugin conditional on having c99
> > available?
>
> That wouldn't be consistent with us currently requiring only a C90 comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-09
21:31:59 UTC ---
> I would expect so, but haven't audited the code. Of course, we *have* a c99
> compiler available after stage 1; is there a way to disable lto-plugin just
> during stage1/non-bootstr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #9 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:35:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > How about if we make building the plugin conditional on having c99
> > available?
>
> That wouldn't be consistent with us currently requiring only a C90 comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22355|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 22:06:57 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:21:07
> UTC ---
> I would expect so, but haven't audited the code. Of course, we *have* a c99
> compiler availabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #12 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 22:08:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> > --- Comment #7 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09
> > 21:21:07 UTC ---
>
> > I would expect so, but haven't audited the code. Of course, we *have* a c99
> > compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 22:17:31 UTC ---
> I hope the respin will render this moot.
Right, our mails crossed :-)
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #14 from Sean McGovern 2010-11-10
12:27:39 UTC ---
Succcessfully bootstrapped with the attached patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #15 from Dave Korn 2010-11-10 15:39:53
UTC ---
Thanks for testing!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #17 from Dave Korn 2010-11-11 13:34:04
UTC ---
Author: davek
Date: Thu Nov 11 13:33:59 2010
New Revision: 166601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166601
Log:
PR bootstrap/46397
PR bootstrap/46362
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
19 matches
Mail list logo
