From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10160 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2006 18:00:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 9939 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2006 18:00:15 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060715180015.9937.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/28102] [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC' undeclared In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "wieseltux23 at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg01137.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #15 from wieseltux23 at gmail dot com 2006-07-15 18:00 ------- Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC' undeclared http://en.fon.com/ On 15 Jul 2006 16:14:34 -0000 "pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" wrote: > > > ------- Comment #10 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-15 16:14 ------- > Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC' > undeclared > > > On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:10 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > Why it is not obvious and I say the patch is incorrect. > > Oh did I forget (again) to say you really should be posting > patches to the gcc-patches mailing list. If you want them > be included. And I still say the patch is incorrect. I already > explained why I thought it was incorrect as linux.h should not > be included. Also the comment in your patch is incorrect > as the definition comes from config/linux.h and not from > config/i386/linux.h. > > -- Pinski > > > -- > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28102 > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28102