From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-181178-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20196 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2013 15:21:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20182 invoked by uid 89); 26 Nov 2013 15:21:22 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-lb0-f175.google.com
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-lb0-f175.google.com) (209.85.217.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:21:22 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x18so4540267lbi.34        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:21:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;        bh=0Krq+iaRd/odoevv6430bFCKnpHYV14RvRL7B7/Km6I=;        b=Obj4cYncfckli0pXi4raUUwCUd/U+0kkeX327GMP8HbNZYZPneT10G6PZLcpA1wS++         iFpTh8HuflFLOptku6NxIlH8ER4t6GZOlob/G6O7fZqEy+Dm/pQWWy7OLW4lJfOaH1Aq         Pet7hM4GFeG3f4WPrRRCWp7K1YC6tDQqvxVsMp+oycg3fJeuKYQWKtpeYbV4zlanuvdV         qgjXtLPwA71i766EBHem9fTOtgwcWqDzWJzF0BtfzFDQG+oAZSLA9RLOY7idZQrxFbPh         f2+U9iQDVstJZriKJmSdn6/8GT7SRR7jMHtKYgkTvjc8+Mdpdl+8Yse45DBMsVAmvsbX         OSWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFHalKvTneihZtUICJ/4ceZ4FpjO0m07FGgBGiCEnq0JRA0Socv2JE0GtV7u2OkMONwNYI
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.37.134 with SMTP id y6mr5459934lbj.29.1385479272334; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.188.202 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:21:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131126145119.GQ30563@lug-owl.de>
References: <1djbjk1n62mkaiqxbjm4lo51.1385469317186@email.android.com>	<20131126145119.GQ30563@lug-owl.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:21:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMqJFCqcAz1JD0CyaPNTEh0J6svCRc7rvr8KskOowWtREk34yA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [buildrobot] microblaze-elf / microblaze-linux
From: Joern Rennecke <joern.rennecke@embecosm.com>
To: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>
Cc: Joel Sherrill <Joel.Sherrill@oarcorp.com>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, 	Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2

On 26 November 2013 14:51, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-26 06:33:39 -0600, Joel Sherrill <Joel.Sherrill@OARcorp.com> wrote:

>> Was microblaze-rtems attempted? I would have expected a failure like
>> these if so.
>
> No, it wasn't.  It's not on the list of targets in
> .../gcc/contrib/config-list.mk .  So we'd probably add that to the
> target list I guess?  I'll propose a patch later tonight (adding to
> another pending patch to config-list.mk)

The idea if config-list.mk is not to build every conceivable target
configuration,
but to give a reasonable converage of the different target architectures and
OS/library configurations so that you can effectively  test a patch with unknown
target-specific impact.

Is there something that microblaze-rtems exposes that is not already
covered by other microblaze or rtems targets that are already included?