On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 2:12 AM, Loïc Minier wrote:
>
>> Upstream faces the same problem, yet manages to move the compiler
>> forward. Since Linaro's goal is for all new developments to make it
>> upstream, we should simply live by upstream's stand
Ulrich Weigand/Germany/IBM wrote on 12/20/2010 06:01:21 PM:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > On 12/20/2010 8:35 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > > Now, I guess there's two ways forward: either the outcome of the
ongoing
> > > discussions on gcc-patches is that it is in fact not a good idea to
> > > genera
On 12/21/2010 2:12 AM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Upstream faces the same problem, yet manages to move the compiler
> forward. Since Linaro's goal is for all new developments to make it
> upstream, we should simply live by upstream's standards when developing
> patches.
However, Linaro doesn't hav
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I certainly understand that desire; I'm just asking how sustainable it
> is and where the commitments ought to lie. I'd just guess that this
> would be an ongoing problem, and that there will be a tension between
> "make the best possible ARM Linux syst
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 grudnia 2010 o 20:03:03 Mark Mitchell napisał(a):
> I'm not trying to take an extreme position; I'm really looking for an
> answer here. We've got something approaching 100 engineers doing
> ARM-oriented work in various components. They build on ARM, test on
> ARM, benchmar
On 12/20/2010 10:54 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> So, I'll build without Linaro on powerpc. Next we'll see regressions on
> ix86 and x86_64, which are not fixed, so stop building these
> architectures without the Linaro changes? Or build without Linaro on
> ix86 and x86_64? Or maybe be a bit more
On 20.12.2010 18:35, Mark Mitchell wrote:
On 12/20/2010 9:01 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Well, I understand we -as Linaro- would like to see Ubuntu base their
compiler on ours, but Ubuntu prefers to use a single source base for the
compiler for all their supported platforms, including SPU. If we
On 12/20/2010 9:01 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Well, I understand we -as Linaro- would like to see Ubuntu base their
> compiler on ours, but Ubuntu prefers to use a single source base for the
> compiler for all their supported platforms, including SPU. If we break
> some of those other platforms
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 8:35 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Matthias noticed the following ICE when attempting to build the SPU
> > compiler from the Linaro GCC 4.5 sources:
>
> With our Linaro hats on, is this something about which we should be
> concerned -- other than in so far as w
On 12/20/2010 8:35 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Matthias noticed the following ICE when attempting to build the SPU
> compiler from the Linaro GCC 4.5 sources:
With our Linaro hats on, is this something about which we should be
concerned -- other than in so far as we want to get the patch accepted
Hello,
Matthias noticed the following ICE when attempting to build the SPU
compiler from the Linaro GCC 4.5 sources:
../../../../src-spu/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__fixunssfdi':
../../../../src-spu/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1344:1: internal compiler
error: in
spu_expand_mov, at config/
11 matches
Mail list logo
