This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] GCC multilib vs. OS multilib naming followup

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
Cc: rth at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, schiele at pi3 dot informatik dot uni-mannheim dot de, aj at suse dot de
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 04:00:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] GCC multilib vs. OS multilib naming followup
References: <20021004154101.W3451@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20021005035457.R5659@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20021005.005118.71088672.davem@redhat.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:51:18AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
>    Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 03:54:57 -0400
> 
>    On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 03:41:01PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>    > Andreas kindly tested this on x86-64 both with --disable-multilib and without
>    > it, thanks.
>    
>    FYI thanks to Robert's testing it is known to work on
>    sparc64-sun-solaris2.8 too.
> 
> There is some kind of Solaris failure reported by Brad Lucier on the
> mainline, can you have a look at this Jakub?
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-10/msg00322.html

This looks identical to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-10/msg00096.html
which was fixed by this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-10/msg00137.html

	Jakub

References:
- [PATCH] GCC multilib vs. OS multilib naming followup
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] GCC multilib vs. OS multilib naming followup
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] GCC multilib vs. OS multilib naming followup
  - From: David S. Miller

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]