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


2016/freebsd-toolchain/20161204.freebsd-toolchain

Messages: 41, sorted by subject
Last page update: Sat Jan 3 13:14:01 UTC 2026
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: powerpc.powerpc64/usr/src/tmp/usr/bin/ld: BFD 2.17.50 [FreeBSD
  3. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214862] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures: __floatdidf gets SIGSEGV's in both 
  4. Nov 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214862] head -r309197 clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures: __floatdidf gets SIGSEGV's in both 
  5. Dec  1 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
  6. Nov 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
  7. Nov 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
  8. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
  9. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
 10. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
 11. Nov 29 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
 12. Nov 29 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
 13. Nov 30 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
 14. Nov 30 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214863] lang/gcc + libc++ may fail due to spurious __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length reference
 15. Dec  3 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::CompareAndSwap and llvm::sys::MemoryFence undefined so build st
 16. Dec  3 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::CompareAndSwap and llvm::sys::MemoryFence undefined so build st
 17. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::CompareAndSwap and llvm::sys::MemoryFence undefined so build st
 18. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::CompareAndSwap and llvm::sys::MemoryFence undefined so build st
 19. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o  [Bug 214902] head -r309179 buildworld on powerpc64 via clang 3.9.0: llvm::sys::CompareAndSwap and llvm::sys::MemoryFence undefined so build st
 20. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214903] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 cross built buildkernel stops for: converts between pointers to integer types wit

 21. Nov 28 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 214904] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 cross-built buildkernel stops for: rejected assembler notation
 22. Nov 27 Mark Millard               Re: clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures: __floatdidf gets SIGSEGV's in both of them.
 23. Nov 27 Mark Millard                Re: clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures: __floatdidf gets SIGSEGV's in both of them.
 24. Nov 27 Mark Millard               Re: clang 3.9.0 vs. TARGET_ARCH=powerpc: fsck_ufs and "df -m" are example failures: __floatdidf gets SIGSEGV's in both of them. [Code generati
 25. Dec  3 Kevin Bowling              Re: Cross built head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with clang 3.9.0/powerpc64-binutils based buildworld operates; but fails "self-hosted buil
 26. Dec  3 Mark Millard                Re: Cross built head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with clang 3.9.0/powerpc64-binutils based buildworld operates; but fails "self-hosted buil
 27. Nov 28 Mark Millard                Cross built head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with clang 3.9.0/powerpc64-binutils based buildworld operates; but fails "self-hosted buildwor
 28. Nov 28 Mark Millard               head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with devel/powerpc64-binutils used: WITH_LIB32= related assembler source rejected. . .
 29. Nov 28 Mark Millard               head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 cross-built buildkernel stops for: rejected assembler notation
 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-binutils : can such be done?
 32. Nov 28 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_CLANG_BOOTSTRAP= for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 but bound to devel/powerpc64-binutils : can such be done?
 33. Dec  1 Mark Millard               Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
 34. Dec  1 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
 35. Dec  1 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
 36. Dec  2 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
 37. Dec  2 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
 38. Dec  2 David Chisnall              Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
 39. Dec  2 Mark Millard                Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
 40. Nov 29 Mark Millard                WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required for C

 41. Nov 29 Ed Maste                    Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required f
home | up | archive | sorted by: subject - author - date - reverse date