This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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: [build] Move unwinder to toplevel libgcc (v2)

From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <richard dot earnshaw at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, Douglas Rupp <rupp at gnat dot com>, Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, Kaz Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Sterling Augustine <augustine dot sterling at gmail dot com>, Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Nicola Pero <nicola dot pero at meta-innovation dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:06:57 +0100
Subject: Re: [build] Move unwinder to toplevel libgcc (v2)
References: <ydd1ux2oc1u.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

Hi Rainer,

How should we proceed with this patch, especially given the quite
moderate comments from most affected target maintainers?

I have no objections to the patch from an ARM or FRV point of view.

Cheers
  Nick

References:
- [build] Move unwinder to toplevel libgcc (v2)
  - From: Rainer Orth

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