From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: GCC bootstrap failure on ARM Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:11:22 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87h9dxukjm.fsf@gnu.org> <20160526165952.GA6576@solar> <87zirajjbk.fsf@gnu.org> <20160531193337.GA22008@solar> <87h9ddksi4.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87ziqy3c4j.fsf@gnu.org> <87y43qu8yw.fsf@netris.org> <87r39hc1kz.fsf@netris.org> <87bn0b1two.fsf@gnu.org> <8760q3opyl.fsf@gnu.org> <878tuwyg13.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f487c5df7af053c5d7bbb Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32838) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bjgxf-0005l6-5c for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 02:12:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bjgxa-0001UI-Un for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 02:12:50 -0400 Received: from mail-yb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172]:33099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bjgxZ-0001Qq-Na for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 02:12:46 -0400 Received: by mail-yb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n11so13773692yba.0 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:12:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel --001a114f487c5df7af053c5d7bbb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 is now building with a tiny patch on gcc-4= .9 (in fact > it=E2=80=99s enough to apply it to gcc-cross-boot0, which is interesting)= : Does this also fix the bootstrap failure with gcc 5? Or is that too late for this core-updates cycle? --001a114f487c5df7af053c5d7bbb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 is now building with a t= iny patch on gcc-4.9 (in fact
> it=E2=80=99s enough to apply it to gcc-cross-boot0, which is interesti= ng):

Does this also fix the bootstrap failure with gcc 5? Or is t= hat too late for this core-updates cycle?

--001a114f487c5df7af053c5d7bbb--