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

[David Daney]

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.
> 
> 
> 
>> Hans
>>
>>  
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Daney [mailto:ddaney@avtrex.com] 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:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00229.html
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> boehm_gc:
>>> 2006-06-06  David Daney  <ddaney@avtrex.com>
>>>
>>>     * configure.ac: Remove NO_SIGSET and NO_DEBUGGING AC_DEFINEs
>>>     when cross compiling.
>>>     * include/gc_config.h.in: Regenerate.
>>>     * configure:  Regenerate.
>>>
>>>     
> 
> 
>