Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)

2016/freebsd-toolchain/20161204.freebsd-toolchain

Messages: 41, sorted by subject
Last update: Mon Feb 13 14:24:36 UTC 2023
home | up | archive sorted by: subject | author | date | reverse date 
  1. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 193594] stddef.h should define max_align_t
  2. Nov 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214855] head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 clang 3.9.0 based cross build: po
  3. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214862] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -
  4. Nov 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214862] head -r309197 clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -
  5. Dec  1 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
  6. Nov 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
  7. Nov 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
  8. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
  9. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
 10. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
 11. Nov 29 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
 12. Nov 29 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
 13. Nov 30 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
 14. Nov 30 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_
 15. Dec  3 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::Com
 16. Dec  3 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::Com
 17. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::Com
 18. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::Com
 19. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::Com
 20. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214903] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 cross built buildkern



 21. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214904] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 cross-built buildkern
 22. Nov 27 Mark Millard               Re: clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures
 23. Nov 27 Mark Millard                Re: clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures
 24. Nov 27 Mark Millard               Re: clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures
 25. Dec  3 Kevin Bowling              Re: Cross built head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with clang 3.9.0/powerpc64-bin
 26. Dec  3 Mark Millard                Re: Cross built head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with clang 3.9.0/powerpc64-bin
 27. Nov 28 Mark Millard                Cross built head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with clang 3.9.0/powerpc64-binutil
 28. Nov 28 Mark Millard               head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with devel/powerpc64-binutils 
 29. Nov 28 Mark Millard               head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 cross-built buildkernel stops for:
 30. Nov 29 Konstantin Belousov        Re: How to turn off SSP stack-protector on 11.0S
 31. Nov 28 Mark Millard               WITH_CLANG_BOOTSTRAP= for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 but bound to devel/powerpc64-binut
 32. Nov 28 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_CLANG_BOOTSTRAP= for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 but bound to devel/powerpc64-b
 33. Dec  1 Mark Millard               Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p
 34. Dec  1 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p
 35. Dec  1 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p
 36. Dec  2 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p
 37. Dec  2 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p
 38. Dec  2 David Chisnall              Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p
 39. Dec  2 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p
 40. Nov 29 Mark Millard                WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/power



 41. Nov 29 Ed Maste                    Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/p

home | up | archive sorted by: subject | author | date | reverse date