This is the mail archive of the 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]

PING: Patch: Configure boehm_gc the same for cross-build as native...

David Daney wrote:
Boehm, Hans wrote:

A slight variant of this is in the upstream source.  I'd be happy to
conform to gcc policy on this point, but I'm not sure I can officially
approve it for gcc.

Not a problem. I was expecting to wait for one of the official libgcj maintainers to render an opinion.

Would it make sense to use the exact patch you have in the upstream source? Or should we commit this, and on the next import use what you have?

OK, I just looked at it. My patch is much smaller and less disruptive than bringing in new upstream sources.

My testing showed no regressions.

OK to commit?

David Daney

David Daney.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Daney [] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:14 PM
To: Java Patch List
Cc: gcc-patches; Boehm, Hans
Subject: Patch: Configure boehm_gc the same for cross-build as native...

Under the principle that Mark Mitchell outlined in this message:

That "cross-compilation of GCC behaves the same as native compilation.", I submit the following patch to the boehm_gc.

Currently when cross compiling, some of the debugging capabilities of the GC are disabled. This patch removes these differences.

Currently building/testing on mipsel-linux cross compiler, and i686-pc-linux-gnu native build.

OK to commit if no regressions?

David Daney

2006-06-06  David Daney  <>

    when cross compiling.
    * include/ Regenerate.
    * configure:  Regenerate.

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