Lutz,
Here is the patch for config. I'm not sure if the 32bit/64bit gcc test is
really in the right place, but its not too bad.
(See attached file: config.diff)
Cheers,
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Alexander "He knows no more about his
MIS - NEC Europe Limited destiny than a tea leaf knows
Work ph: +44 20 8752 3394 the history of East India Company"
|---------+----------------------------->
| | "Lutz Jaenicke via|
| | RT" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| | Sent by: |
| | owner-openssl-dev@|
| | openssl.org |
| | |
| | |
| | 13/06/2002 08:09 |
| | Please respond to |
| | openssl-dev |
| | |
|---------+----------------------------->
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Subject: [openssl.org #96] bug in config script (gcc 3.1)
|
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 13 08:34:54 2002]:
> The "config" script needs to use "gcc -dumpversion"
> instead of "gcc --version" to determine the gcc version.
> gcc-3.1 outputs a bunch of text with "--version", but
> just the number with "-dumpversion", which also works for
> gcc-2.95.
Sounds like a possible solution to the problem of gcc version
recognition. The solution being included currently doesn't seem to be
sufficient (see thread "Various patches for 0.9.6d and 0.9.7-beta1",
I have added [EMAIL PROTECTED] as another requestor for this
ticket).
For how long this flag has been supported? I suppose it will work on
CYGWIN as well.
Best regards,
Lutz
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
config.diff
Description: Binary data
