This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Version 0.0 of binutils is unsurprisingly feature-poor

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, paul at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:45:55 +0200
Subject: Re: Version 0.0 of binutils is unsurprisingly feature-poor
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.devel, gmane.comp.gcc.regression
References: <20040919120457.2906.qmail@fenric.devphil.com> <414E12BE.906@codesourcery.com> <20040920031601.GA29397@localhost> <414E5393.7040004@codesourcery.com> <20040920042333.GA30437@localhost> <414E60E6.60007@codesourcery.com> <20040920104028.GA1389@localhost> <878yb555st.fsf@codesourcery.com>

When host != build, we can't run that assembler at all.  Also, the
toplevel configure-gcc target may depend only on configure-gas, not
all-gas (I haven't gone and looked).

It can depend on all-gas. It did not when host configures were ran at configure time. Still, it diminishes the amount of parallelism in the build process.

Paolo

References:
- Version 0.0 of binutils is unsurprisingly feature-poor (was Re: Regression for csl-arm on arm-none-elf)
  - From: Phil Edwards
- Re: Version 0.0 of binutils is unsurprisingly feature-poor
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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