Dave Korn wrote: > René Berber wrote on 10 September 2008 23:29: > >> Hi, >> >> Has anyone tested it? > > Well, yeah :)
That much I knew, it's the normal way gcc builds itself. [snip] > Nah, nothing like that. Cygcheck output show anything? Traces of v3 > remaining and interfering? Bingo! I have an old gcc 4.0.2 under /usr/local, that probably is the problem... changing PATH wasn't enough, strange. At least now I know what I'm looking for. Thanks! -- René Berber -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/