stdio.h should be included with every c/c++ compiler. It is a basic
include file for the c language
Tim
James Sparenberg wrote:
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 06:23, Jarmo wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 16:01, Jarmo wrote:
The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors
Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1?
In 9.1 it was 3.3.2.
Jarmo
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote:
Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1?
In 9.1 it was 3.3.2.
It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2.
--
Stew Benedict
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote:
Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1?
In 9.1 it was 3.3.2.
It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2.
Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD BAD English...
In 9.1 it is 3.3.2
In 9.2 it is
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote:
Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1?
In 9.1 it was 3.3.2.
It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2.
Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD BAD
From: Jarmo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote:
Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1?
In 9.1 it was 3.3.2.
It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2.
Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD BAD
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:39, Thomas Backlund wrote:
so it's definately 3.2.2
SORRY GUYS..
Too much reading...Have to cut whole forrest to see trees...;-)
Or wash my glasses
Damn me.
The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors 2.8.0
compiled...Yes I know
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 16:01, Jarmo wrote:
The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors 2.8.0
compiled...Yes I know there is rpm...But I have so exotic mb... Asrock
K7S8X with sis cipset,exept sensors are winbonds...
No worry anymore.Downloaded lm-sensors 2.8.1 as well
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 05:10, Jarmo wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote:
Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1?
In 9.1 it was 3.3.2.
It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2.
Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 06:23, Jarmo wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 16:01, Jarmo wrote:
The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors 2.8.0
compiled...Yes I know there is rpm...But I have so exotic mb... Asrock
K7S8X with sis cipset,exept sensors are winbonds...
No
I tried to build the gcc-3.2.1 rpm's from
gcc-3.2.1-2mdk.src.rpm
(using rpm -bb gcc.spec) and the build bombs out during
installation into /var/tmp/gcc-3.2.1-root/
Here are the final lines of the build:
+ ln -s /usr/include/libgcj-3.2.1
Nope cpp is installed...(not the first cpp app but thanks) Went to
anjuta's site... found out that a newer version is out grabbed it and
the error went away... only to be replaced by the error that it can't
find g++... *sigh*
James
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 00:08, Brian Parish wrote:
On Mon,
Nailed it... had to re-install rpms for gcc and poof it re-appeared in
working form (yes I could manually find g++ but it wasn't working right
for reasons beyond me.) So anjunta 1.0.0 built. Oh and my original
problem was with 0.9.99 ... that one still gives the same error. I'm
putting it down
I've just hit an error for the first time ever with my 8.2 box. I've
compiled a number of applications on this box and now all the sudden
while trying to compile ajunta it tells me that it find gcc but that
gcc can't compile executables and configure errors out.
Running MDK 8.2 with all
Greetings,
I have a small C program that shows -O1 and -O2 optimizations problems, I
believe. What's the proper channel for reporting the problem?
Thanks.
David
David Relson Osage Software Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL
David Relson wrote on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 05:57:35PM -0400 :
Greetings,
I have a small C program that shows -O1 and -O2 optimizations problems, I
believe. What's the proper channel for reporting the problem?
Go directly to the gcc people:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html
Blue
At 06:53 PM 9/23/02, Todd Lyons wrote:
David Relson wrote on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 05:57:35PM -0400 :
Greetings,
I have a small C program that shows -O1 and -O2 optimizations problems, I
believe. What's the proper channel for reporting the problem?
Go directly to the gcc people:
David Relson wrote on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 09:24:36PM -0400 :
At 06:53 PM 9/23/02, Todd Lyons wrote:
I have a small C program that shows -O1 and -O2 optimizations problems, I
Thanks. Two code generation reports filed.
prog1.c runs properly with -O0, but not -O1.
prog2.c (a slight variation
On Fri, 31 May 2002 18:05:07 -0700
Robby Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1 rpm --rebuild NVIDIA_kernel-1.0-2960.src.rpm
That did the trick.
Thanks much.
Charles
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Just add to the makefile:
IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1
it may be right after KERNDIR =...
Wooky
Charles A Edwards wrote:
Because of versions I need to pass the Ignore_CC_MISMATCH arg to build
the nvidia_kernel.
So far I have had no luck.
Could some kind soul enlighten me as to how to pass that
Because of versions I need to pass the Ignore_CC_MISMATCH arg to build
the nvidia_kernel.
So far I have had no luck.
Could some kind soul enlighten me as to how to pass that specific arg.
Thanks
Charles
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to
Because of versions I need to pass the
Ignore_CC_MISMATCH arg to build
the nvidia_kernel.
So far I have had no luck.
Could some kind soul enlighten me as to how to
pass that specific arg.
I'm currently having a similar troubles, does your
problem also stem from a
cooker kernel upgrade by
On Fri, 31 May 2002 23:23:31 +0100 (BST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm currently having a similar troubles, does your
problem also stem from a
cooker kernel upgrade by rpm?
Yep.
Kernel-2418-18 and gcc-3.1.1
Luckily I had another system on which I updated only the kernel and was
able
Yep.
Kernel-2418-18 and gcc-3.1.1
Luckily I had another system on which I updated
only the kernel and was
able to build the drivers on it and then install
same on this system.
I still would like to know how to pass that
command.
I tried modifying both the rpm spec and the
make file in
On Friday 31 May 2002 06:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still would like to know how to pass that
command.
Sorry but I can't offer any help with passing the
Ignore_CC_MISMATCH comamnd, I've broken enough
for one day I think.
try something like:
export Ignore_CC_Mismatch=1
-s
I am using mandrake 8.2 and have gcc 2.96-0.76mdk installed (the standard
distribution version) and installed gcc-colorgcc 2.96-0.76mdk
If I try to use gcc I get this error;
# gcc
Can't exec /usr/bin/gcc-3.1: No such file or directory at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/IPC/Open3.pm line 230.
open3: exec
Praedor,
I haven't used it myself, but a friend of mine (one of the original
members of 386 BSD development team at Berkley) has been trying it out.
He said that for now anything built with it isn't compatible with programs
compiled with earlier versions of gcc. In short he told me it's
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 03:03:35 -0800
James [EMAIL PROTECTED] studiouisly spake these words to ponder:
Praedor,
I haven't used it myself, but a friend of mine (one of the original
members of 386 BSD development team at Berkley) has been trying it out.
He said that for now anything built
How is gcc 3.0 these days? Has its problems been corrected enough to make it
a worthy compiler?
praedor
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Hi,
I am not a developer but reguralarly compile src.rpm packages on my Mandrake
8.1 system. I was wondering what the difference is between gcc-2.96 and gcc
3.0.
Is it save to remove gcc-2.96 and install gcc3. Or is it saver to stick with
the old gcc-2.96.
Marc
Want to buy your Pack
My advice, which is probably worth just about what you're paying for
it, is to stick with 2.96.
Probably for 99.9% of the programs you are likely to try it with, gcc
3.0 will be fine, and possibly better, than 2.96. But that 0.1% might
be a real killer. 2.96 might not (perhaps) produce as
I had to downgrade my gcc compiler to 296
Apache has ceased to function.
I don't understand the relation.
What can I do to fix it?
Please advise.
Thanks
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 23:36, you wrote:
On Sat, 2001-11-24 at 19:28, Darwin Gottfried wrote:
yep it's in the download version of 8.1 for sure. gcc 3.0.1.
[Copy posted to the list instead of an individual]
G. May I suggest to the listop that reply-to be changed to
[EMAIL
On Sat, 2001-11-24 at 19:28, Darwin Gottfried wrote:
yep it's in the download version of 8.1 for sure. gcc 3.0.1.
[Copy posted to the list instead of an individual]
G. May I suggest to the listop that reply-to be changed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for any messages posted via the list?
Avoid
On Saturday 24 November 2001 18:20, you wrote:
So sprach »Jose Luis Vazquez Gonzalez« am 2001-11-24 um 18:49:22 +0100 :
Hi,
Has someone upgraded to gcc 3.0.x?
Yep.
how?
urpmi gcc3
Dunno if it's in 8.1, but it's for sure in cooker.
yep it's in the download version of 8.1 for sure.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
How can I have gcc 2 and gcc 3 installed on the same computer and choice
which one I would like to use prior to compiling something ?
thank you.
- --
Pupeno: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pupeno.com.ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
Will the mandrake 8.1 have the gcc 3.1 in it or are they staying with 2.96..
if not I guess I'll have to downgrade to gcc 2.95 then..
Harold
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Both. gcc is 2.96, and there are optional gcc3 packages as well.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by the
gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro occupied the
number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very different times
and do not really resemble each other very much, yet the binaries
On Friday 24 August 2001 10:50, Tom Badran wrote:
Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by
the gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro
occupied the number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very
different times and do not
Thanks for answering one question for me: why the current python source rpm
from cooker wouldn't compile on Mandrake 7.2's gcc. I compiled gcc-2.96
source rpm on LM7.2, then recompiled it using 2.96, and now will hopefully be
able to compile the latest python on that platform as well.
--
Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found
it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have both
gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has some issues that make it suitable to keep a
2.9 version of gcc about, i just wondered if it is possible to
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
On Thursday 23 August 2001 19:01, Tom Badran wrote:
Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found
it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have
both gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has
On Thursday 23 August 2001 19:01, Tom Badran wrote:
Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found
it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have
both gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has some issues that make it suitable to
keep a 2.9 version
On 06-Aug-2001 Jesse Hepburn wrote:
I'm trying to upgrade to GCC 3.0 (because 2.96 is buggy). Whenever I
try to make it (using make --bootstrap) I get preprocessor errors and
the make fails. Is this a known problem, or is it just me? Any help
would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Jesse
I
Im trying to upgrade to GCC 3.0 (because 2.96 is
buggy). Whenever I try to make it (using
make --bootstrap) I get preprocessor errors and the make fails. Is this a known problem, or is it just
me? Any help would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Jesse
I need to rebuild my gcc. Apparently, it isn't
working well. On an attempt to build mozilla,
running the configure script returned an error
message that said something was wrong with the
g++ component.
The version of gcc I have right now is
2.95.2 . It says on the gcc web site that the
latest
Regards,
Joe
RLU# 186063
Reading is the essence of knowledge
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 01:53 AM
To: Shahrimi Johann
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 07:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL
Shahrimi Johann wrote:
Hi all,
just a question.
GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes
Nathan Callahan wrote:
BTW M$, AFIK, does not use GPLed code in any of its operations. It uses
BSD licensed code, which, by not having the contagious elements of the
GPL, lets this sort of thing go on.
They DO use lots of GPL code... albeit to try to move *nix users to NT...
Hi all,
just a question.
GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes with libraries that will be
used in the programs that are created using them.
These resulting programs that we developed, do they fall under GPL/Open
Source as well since GPL is otherwise known as Contagious License? This
Shahrimi Johann wrote:
Hi all,
just a question.
GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes with libraries that will be
used in the programs that are created using them.
I'm no expert on the GPL, but, as I understand it, it only becomes viral
when you use source from another GPL'd
]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 07:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL
Shahrimi Johann wrote:
Hi all,
just a question.
GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes with libraries
that will be
used in the programs that are created using
Hi,
I got error when trying to compile the kernel using
gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install
gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead.
Thank in advance !
=
S.KIEU
_
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo!
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote:
Hi,
I got error when trying to compile the kernel using
gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install
gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead.
2.91.66 is recommended for kernel building.
On Thursday 07 June 2001 12:52, Steve Kieu wrote:
Hi,
I got error when trying to compile the kernel using
gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install
gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead.
Thank in advance !
=
S.KIEU
This is unsurprising. 2.96 is much stricter. You cannot
Hello experts.
It would seem that gcc (2.95.2-12mdk) in 7.2 is broken if you use
-fomit-frame-pointers. Here is a URL to a message which might help
explain:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/2001-q1/msg00225.html
I tried to go to https://qa.linux-mandrake.com/ to report this as a
bug it would
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Hello experts.
It would seem that gcc (2.95.2-12mdk) in 7.2 is broken if you use
-fomit-frame-pointers. Here is a URL to a message which might help
explain:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/2001-q1/msg00225.html
[snip]
Thanks for pointing
On Thursday 18 January 2001 05:26, you wrote:
Dear Expert Users!
My name is Laszlo Baranyai and this is the first time I have written to
this list. I am working with digital image processing and would like to
compile my algorithms under Linux as well. The following program is written
Baranyai László [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear "rc",
First of all, thank you for your answer.
You're welcom, but, well, I wish i'd been more help!
written in C and has strange result: the 14 byte structure allocates 16
bytes, the 3 byte structure requires 3 bytes !?
Interesting.
Dear Expert Users!
My name is Laszlo Baranyai and this is the first time I have written to this
list. I am working with digital image processing and would like to compile
my algorithms under Linux as well. The following program is written in C
and has strange result: the 14 byte structure
Baranyai László [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Expert Users!
My name is Laszlo Baranyai and this is the first time I have written to this
list. I am working with digital image processing and would like to compile
my algorithms under Linux as well. The following program is written in C
and
What gcc version is shipped with LM 7.2? When I say gcc --version, it shows
me 2.95.3! while the latest stable is 2.95.2 (correct me if i am wrong)
also, if i check under /usr/bin, the actual gcc executable is gcc-2.95.2
What is all this?
--
--
Sarang Lakare
I'm trying to get some module drivers for my FA311 card to compile, but I
get a whole host of errors, for no apparent reason. I did gcc --dumpversion
and it said it was 2.95.3 and a prerelease. Thank you for any help.
Bob Kubinec
--
Get
Hello,
I am trying to get gcc (actually i think g++ is what I really want) on my
machine.
I tried the RPM route, but the dependicies seem to be endless. Thus I am taking
my first shot at the tar.bz2 method.
I put the archive in $HOME/gcc. Then I unpacked and extracted it in the same.
The
Hey, i'm using the 7.2 beta of linux mandrake and I have problems compiling,
well more specically building, applications designed for kde 1.1.2, namely
kdevelop 1.2.
The configure (./configure --prefix=/usr/lib/kde1-compat) script gives me
the following error output in config.log (broken
Benjamin Ellis wrote:
[...]
Also, is there a way to perserve desktop icon layout and panel launcher
settings when updating to kde2.0 final? I've reinstalled mandrake-desk,
setup, and initscripts and it still doesn't look the way it did when i first
installed. The launcher icons don't point
I'm trying to compile the jikes compiler and I get an internal error when I
do. Has anyone else seen this with 7.1? I'd compiled it on 7.0 with no
problem.
In file included from system.cpp:12:
tuple.h: In method `void TupleTupleAstExpression * ::AllocateMoreSpace()':
tuple.h:195:
Hi,
I'm trying to compile the jikes compiler and I get an internal error when I
do. Has anyone else seen this with 7.1? I'd compiled it on 7.0 with no
problem.
In file included from system.cpp:12:
tuple.h: In method `void TupleTupleAstExpression * ::AllocateMoreSpace()':
tuple.h:195:
hi there :
Good day. after compilation hello.c file by typing
gcc -o hello hello.c and I try to type hello and run
it but i got the message such as
bash : hello: command not found.
How to make it run by typing hello ? any additional
package do i need to install it ?
At first my gcc
Jason Yeoh wrote:
hi there :
Good day. after compilation hello.c file by typing
gcc -o hello hello.c and I try to type hello and run
it but i got the message such as
bash : hello: command not found.
How to make it run by typing hello ? any additional
package do i need to install it ?
At first my
linux looks in pre-specified places for executables to run. these places are
listed in the PATH variable.
you can run executables that are not listed in PATH by giving the full
pathway:
# /home/bob/bin/hello
or if you are in /home/bob/bin/ then try
# ./hello
or you can add /home/bob/bin/ to
Matt Stegman wrote:
I believe the RPMs are compiled with several GCC options that optimize
compiling for i586. Still, if your compiler is crashing with signal 11, I
don't know that I'd trust it, even to recompile for i486.
Well, I'll just recompile my compiler and see if that works. (I
When I am compiling something large, like a new kernel or Apache, GCC/make has
a tendency to receive a signal 11 several times during the process, forcing
me to restart make. I did not observe this when running RedHat so I was wondering
if it could be the Mandrake optimisation of the kernel.
Coule be bad memory, bably seated CPU..
* Andreas Bergstr?m [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000720 11:29]:
When I am compiling something large, like a new kernel or Apache, GCC/make has
a tendency to receive a signal 11 several times during the process, forcing
me to restart make. I did not observe this
When I am compiling something large, like a new kernel or Apache, GCC/make
has
a tendency to receive a signal 11 several times during the process,
forcing
me to restart make. I did not observe this when running RedHat so I was
wondering
if it could be the Mandrake optimisation of the kernel.
Tony McGee wrote:
I always thought that Mandrake was not just i586 optimized code but i586
ONLY code. I think it's much safer to stick with RedHat for anything less
than a Pentium cpu.
Well, I used RedHat before, but I could not get my ISDN TA card to function,
so that is not an option,
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, you wrote:
Tony McGee wrote:
I always thought that Mandrake was not just i586 optimized code but i586
ONLY code. I think it's much safer to stick with RedHat for anything less
than a Pentium cpu.
Well, I used RedHat before, but I could not get my ISDN TA card to
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Andreas [iso-8859-1] Bergstrøm wrote:
Tony McGee wrote:
I always thought that Mandrake was not just i586 optimized code but i586
ONLY code. I think it's much safer to stick with RedHat for anything less
than a Pentium cpu.
Well, I used RedHat before, but I could
Matt Stegman wrote:
Grab Mandrake's i486 7.0 ISO. A list of mirrors is on Mandrake's site.
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ftp.php3
Thanks, I'll consider it of someone could verify that the Mandrake RPMs
are i586 code only, not just optimized. The systems feels no slower than
it was with
John Aldrich wrote:
You might try RedHat 6.2. It's got most of the same software that
Mandrake 7.01 had, except that they are (mostly) the "full-release
versions" instead of release candidates.
Well, I have a Mandrake 7.1 on it way to me in the mail, and I personally
prefer using it, so I'll
I believe the RPMs are compiled with several GCC options that optimize
compiling for i586. Still, if your compiler is crashing with signal 11, I
don't know that I'd trust it, even to recompile for i486.
-Matt Stegman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Andreas [iso-8859-1] Bergstrøm wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000, you wrote:
Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther the normanl install
I get the following error on ./configure
-
checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no
configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler
cannot create
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, John Hawk wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000, you wrote:
Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther the normanl install
I get the following error on ./configure
-
checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no
configure: error: installation or
I had this problem last week. Ended up being a corrupt Perl installation.
Reinstalled Perl and all is fine again.
-Original Message-
From: John Hawk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 11:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] gcc compile error
On Thu
there are a total of 12 packages just for C / C++ compilers.
Mac
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Grimsdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 4:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [expert] gcc compile error
Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther
Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther the normanl install
I get the following error on ./configure
-
checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no
configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler
cannot create executables.
-
I used
rpm
Do an rpm -qa | grep c++
Should get something like
libstdc++-2.95xxx
libstdc++-compatxxx
gcc-c++-
If not you can install them off you cd. Hope this helps.
Sean Armstrong wrote:
I'm running Mandrake 7.02 on my Dell XPS 133c. I installed the minimal
amount of packages that Mandrake will
My machine has both gcc and egcs packages installed, and I've noticed that
egcs doesn't install any binaries besides egcs-version. All it does is
install the headers and libraries. Supposedly according to Linus, we
should be compiling the kernels with either gcc 2.70.x or egcs 1.1.2. And
we
ecgs seems to install it all if gcc isn't installed already . . .
"John D. Kim" wrote:
My machine has both gcc and egcs packages installed, and I've noticed that
egcs doesn't install any binaries besides egcs-version. All it does is
install the headers and libraries. Supposedly according
It was my experience that there are a lot of C files not installed by default,
namely all the standard header files. This surprised me. If you install the
kernel source, they will be installed. This has been my experience.
-Andrew Vick
= Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
My Mdk 7.0 install (I just hit the recommended button let it do the
rest) does not seem to have set up gcc correctly. Can anyone tell me
what I need to do to fix this?
[root@treble nicq-0.0.5]# ./configure
creating cache ./config.cache
checking for a BSD compatible install.../usr/bin/install
Trevor Farrell a écrit :
My Mdk 7.0 install (I just hit the recommended button let it do the
rest) does not seem to have set up gcc correctly. Can anyone tell me
what I need to do to fix this?
[root@treble nicq-0.0.5]# ./configure
creating cache ./config.cache
checking for a BSD
Trevor Farrell wrote:
My Mdk 7.0 install (I just hit the recommended button let it do the
rest) does not seem to have set up gcc correctly. Can anyone tell me
what I need to do to fix this?
[root@treble nicq-0.0.5]# ./configure
creating cache ./config.cache
checking for a BSD compatible
Civileme wrote:
Put your 7.0 install CD back in, boot from it, choose Custom,
Development, Upgrade It will leave your settings alone and give you all
the packages you need (and more besides, against future development
needs)
Are you sure?
It has been my (sad) experience that you CANNOT
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Sheldon Lee Wen wrote:
How difficult would it be, and wat problems would it cause to update
the pgcc to the new gcc2.95 I'm really looking forward to using the new gjc
front end and improved c++ features but I don't want to break my compiler and
libs.
You will
Hi,
How difficult would it be, and wat problems would it cause to update
the pgcc to the new gcc2.95 I'm really looking forward to using the new gjc
front end and improved c++ features but I don't want to break my compiler and
libs. Also, will we see a mandrake rpm for it?
Sheldon.
--
97 matches
Mail list logo
