On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:42:22PM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >Updated version, note that this is still not suitable for CVS since
> >x86 fails to build with it.
>
> fyi: for me, arm-softmmu fails as well:
>
By x86, he probably means x86 hosts, not x86-softmmu
All targets
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Updated version, note that this is still not suitable for CVS since
x86 fails to build with it.
fyi: for me, arm-softmmu fails as well:
.../qemu/qemu-snapshot-2006-03-30_23/target-arm/op.c
gcc: unrecognized option '-preferred-stack-boundary=2'
/qemu/qemu-snapshot-2006-03-3
On 29 Mar 2006, at 11:33, Paul Brook wrote:
Also, the gcc -O2 option is more than the sum of the other options
it enables.
That, IMHO, is a bug. Of course, its not Qemu's bug. :-)
JP
--
"The New York Times is read by the people who run the country. The
Washington Post is read by the peop
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:37:50PM +, sofar wrote:
>
> I kind of like it and wish that some lists would allow me to set it as a
> user-preference - there are so many lists and I really never ever want to
> reply to *just* the person (ever, ever, ever).
>
> reply-to the list is good for me
>
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 09:24:59PM +0200, Pascal Terjan wrote:
> On 3/29/06, John Davidorff Pell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
> > to be a Bad Thing??
>
> Only according to some people :)
> I hate when I reply to a list and the m
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:24:59 +0200, "Pascal Terjan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, John Davidorff Pell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
>> to be a Bad Thing?
>
> Only according to some people :)
> I hate when I reply to
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 18:03, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
> I was just thinking that by enabling the required feature
> individually, someone else could choose -O0 and not have to
> investigate why it fails. Its not like its a big deal, though. :-)
Like most things dyngen relies on this isn't a
On 3/29/06, John Davidorff Pell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
> to be a Bad Thing™?
Only according to some people :)
I hate when I reply to a list and the message goes to the guy and not
to the list... (If someone enforces Reply-To
I was just thinking that by enabling the required feature
individually, someone else could choose -O0 and not have to
investigate why it fails. Its not like its a big deal, though. :-)
JP
P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
to be a Bad Thing™?
On 29 Mar 2
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:26:27PM -0800, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
> Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to specifically request that
> feature of gcc, with one of its myriad options, rather than forcing a
> rather large optimization sweep? I'm sure that -O2 is good generally,
> but usi
Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to specifically request that
feature of gcc, with one of its myriad options, rather than forcing a
rather large optimization sweep? I'm sure that -O2 is good generally,
but using it as a kludge to get at one of the many things that it
enables seems li
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 12:25:01PM +, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> the appended patch
>
> - Adds detection of gcc commandline flag support, based on the theory
> "If it exists, we want to use it".
> - Uses this to add enough gcc4 flag magic to OP_FLAGS, and remove the
> specialca
Hi,
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> If you describe a specific problem I can probably tell you if it
> is covered by my patch.
I had the impression something went wrong on MinGW32: I did not try
myself, but IIRC there were multiple "ret" statements per compiled oplet.
Since I was n
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:20:07PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIR gcc 4 had different problems on different platforms. Does your patch
> solve them?
I tested only Linux/powerpc and checked the disassembly there. I
believe the patch will improve the situation generically for al
Hi,
AFAIR gcc 4 had different problems on different platforms. Does your patch
solve them?
Ciao,
Dscho
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
Hello all,
the appended patch
- Adds detection of gcc commandline flag support, based on the theory
"If it exists, we want to use it".
- Uses this to add enough gcc4 flag magic to OP_FLAGS, and remove the
specialcasing for gcc3 as well as the bail out for gcc4.
- Makes CFLAGS and OP_CLFAGS di
16 matches
Mail list logo
