Re: gcc-10: options order important?

[Sven Joachim]

On 2021-09-03 12:24 +0200, Piotr A. Dybczyński wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in contrary to previous versions, now in Debian 11 with gcc-10:
>
> gcc aa.c -lm -o aa   works, but
>
> gcc -lm aa.c -o aa   does not work, saying: 
>
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccWyhudO.o: in function `main':
> aa.c:(.text+0x1f): undefined reference to `sqrt'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> It seems that an option -lm cannot be placed in an arbitrary place which I 
> used to
> do. Is this intentional ?

Yes, gcc now invokes ld with the --as-needed option.  This reduces
unnecessary linking and thereby Debian package dependencies, but it also
has the effect you are seeing, as mentioned in the binutils
documentation:

,
| Object files or libraries appearing on the command line _after_ the
| library in question do not affect whether the library is seen as needed.
| This is similar to the rules for extraction of object files from
| archives.  '--no-as-needed' restores the default behaviour.
`

Cheers,
   Sven

Re: gcc-10: options order important?

[tomas]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 12:59:27PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:12:46PM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> > > A man page a found online [1] says linking happens as Greg described, 
> > > and this is true looking at a 6 year old copy of that page on
> > > archive.org. So seems strange that for many years my Makefiles have
> > > worked with Libraries specified before inputs that use them.
> > 
> > Correction... 'for many years my Makefiles have worked with Libraries
> > specified _after_ inputs that use them'
> 
> You had it right the first time.  It's strange that it worked (in the
> past) with the library argument in front.  It's supposed to be behind.
> 
> The linker's argument processing must have been changed a few times.
> GNU utilities in general have a tendency to be overly lenient with
> command-line options.  Commands that *should* fail according to POSIX
> sometimes work in the GNU variants.

[...]

It /might/ be related to weak linking and the default for
the --as-needed option in the linker. Caveat: I haven't found
the time to research this more thoroughly.

But OP could try to pass --no-as-needed and see what happens :)

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: gcc-10: options order important?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:12:46PM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> > A man page a found online [1] says linking happens as Greg described, 
> > and this is true looking at a 6 year old copy of that page on
> > archive.org. So seems strange that for many years my Makefiles have
> > worked with Libraries specified before inputs that use them.
> 
> Correction... 'for many years my Makefiles have worked with Libraries
> specified _after_ inputs that use them'

You had it right the first time.  It's strange that it worked (in the
past) with the library argument in front.  It's supposed to be behind.

The linker's argument processing must have been changed a few times.
GNU utilities in general have a tendency to be overly lenient with
command-line options.  Commands that *should* fail according to POSIX
sometimes work in the GNU variants.

For example:

unicorn:~$ ls .bashrc -l
-rwxr-xr-x 1 greg greg 2741 Sep  1 22:32 .bashrc*

That should *not* have worked, but GNU permits the option (-l) to be
handled even when it's in the wrong place.  (In standard POSIX ls,
that command should have tried to list a file named "-l", because
the non-option ".bashrc" terminates option processing.  All remaining
arguments are to be treated as files or directories.)

All I can speculate is that GNU ld (the linker that gcc uses) must have
had some tweaks done to it over the years, and now has settled back into
its original behavior.  An expert in GNU binutils (or even a changelog)
might have more details.

The way a gcc (or cc) command is supposed to be written is:

gcc [options] source/object files [-libraries]

The up-front [options] can include things like "-o foo" to specify an
output file other than a.out to the linker.  So, for example, the OP's
command should have been something like:

gcc -o foo foo.c -lm

That's the standard format, and is what you should be using in Makefiles
and similar files which call gcc.

Re: gcc-10: options order important?

[Tixy]

On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 14:10 +0100, Tixy wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 12:24 +0200, Piotr A. Dybczyński wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > in contrary to previous versions, now in Debian 11 with gcc-10:
> > 
> > gcc aa.c -lm -o aa   works, but
> > 
> > gcc -lm aa.c -o aa   does not work, saying: 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > It seems that an option -lm cannot be placed in an arbitrary place which I 
> > used to
> > do. Is this intentional ?
> 
> I found this too, I just modified my Makefiles to have libraries after
> input files.
> 
> A man page a found online [1] says linking happens as Greg described, 
> and this is true looking at a 6 year old copy of that page on
> archive.org. So seems strange that for many years my Makefiles have
> worked with Libraries specified before inputs that use them.

Correction... 'for many years my Makefiles have worked with Libraries
specified _after_ inputs that use them'

-- 
Tixy

Re: gcc-10: options order important?

[Tixy]

On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 12:24 +0200, Piotr A. Dybczyński wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> in contrary to previous versions, now in Debian 11 with gcc-10:
> 
> gcc aa.c -lm -o aa   works, but
> 
> gcc -lm aa.c -o aa   does not work, saying: 

[...]

> It seems that an option -lm cannot be placed in an arbitrary place which I 
> used to
> do. Is this intentional ?

I found this too, I just modified my Makefiles to have libraries after
input files.

A man page a found online [1] says linking happens as Greg described, 
and this is true looking at a 6 year old copy of that page on
archive.org. So seems strange that for many years my Makefiles have
worked with Libraries specified before inputs that use them.

-- 
Tixy

Re: gcc-10: options order important?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 12:24:39PM +0200, Piotr A. Dybczyński wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> in contrary to previous versions, now in Debian 11 with gcc-10:
> 
> gcc aa.c -lm -o aa   works, but
> 
> gcc -lm aa.c -o aa   does not work, saying: 
> 
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccWyhudO.o: in function `main':
> aa.c:(.text+0x1f): undefined reference to `sqrt'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

If this *ever* worked in the past, it was dumb luck.  Libraries need
to be given after the objects that use them.  That's how the linker
operates.

You can think of it this way: the linker scans through the list of object
files and libraries in a single pass, left to right.  In your non-working
command, the first thing it encounters is -lm (math library).  So it
checks for any unresolved symbols that it currently has, and tries to
match them against the math library.  There aren't any unresolved symbols
at this point (because no object files have been linked in yet), so it
doesn't pull anything out of the math library.

Next it encounters aa.o (implicitly compiled from aa.c), and it links in
that object file, which may have some unresolved symbols.  If there are
any, the linker expects that it'll be given a library afterward, to look
them up.

But... there is no library given after that.  It doesn't go *back* to
look at the math library a second time.

Re: GCC 7

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:35:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Took out mk-sbuild for a whirl. What I didn't like at all: when you
> > invoke a command and it goes out and starts installing packages for
> > you (and doing other assorted sysadmin tasks).
> 
> You can do everything that mk-sbuild does for you manually, but when
> you're setting up many different sbuild chroots, it makes things much
> easier. [And it makes my response much simpler.]

Yes, I understand *why* it is doing it. It just doesn't rhyme very
well with the way I do things.

Pulling in dependencies at install is something I expect (and can
easily check in advance, thanks to the well thought-out Debian
packaging system). Calling "apt-get install" (to my *main* system,
not to the chroot!) from a seemingly unrelated command is something
I... dislike (there were other things I disliked, too).

So this was just a heads-up for others like me. I had a look into
the mk-sbuild script and decided to purge ubuntu-dev-tools.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsjVrkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb7JgCfdcywY9A1ZaK4rwP3gw11OBc0
qcYAniTwFq3KnAFdSRIijkZNSY+Dpk82
=bq/r
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Took out mk-sbuild for a whirl. What I didn't like at all: when you
> invoke a command and it goes out and starts installing packages for
> you (and doing other assorted sysadmin tasks).

You can do everything that mk-sbuild does for you manually, but when
you're setting up many different sbuild chroots, it makes things much
easier. [And it makes my response much simpler.]

The things that mk-sbuild installs are just sbuild, schroot, and
debootstrap, and possibly lvm2 if you're using lvm chroots; I actually
didn't notice that it even did that because I have all of them
installed. [And really, mk-sbuild *is* a sysadmin tool designed to
automate sysadmin tasks.]


-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

"I always tend to assume there's an infinite amount of money out
there." "There might as well be, [...] but most of it gets spent on
pornography, sugar water, and bombs. There is only so much that can be
scraped together for particle accelerators."
 -- Neal Stephenson _Anathem_ p262

Re: GCC 7

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:06:27PM +0200, Irek Szcześniak wrote:
> I tried schroot in a different way, as described here:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Schroot
> 
> As part of the process, you install a complete, fresh Buster with:
> 
> debootstrap buster /srv/chroot/buster
> 
> So this solution is like a container.

Yep, that rhymes better with how I tick :-)

Thanks, cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsiVskACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbRSwCfe3TRYv5PyHweQ/vDeAVjkWrW
UNUAnAukE4rx6kGJNnl/dI7/klbl9Pyk
=h0MJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[Irek Szcześniak]

I tried schroot in a different way, as described here:

https://wiki.debian.org/Schroot

As part of the process, you install a complete, fresh Buster with:

debootstrap buster /srv/chroot/buster

So this solution is like a container.


Best,
Irek

On 14.06.2018 12:47, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Irek Szcześniak wrote:

Thanks for pointing out pbuilder, I think I'll give it a try.  I also might
want to try virtual containers, but it seems like an overkill.


You might also try out schroot.

Something like:

apt-get install schroot ubuntu-dev-tools;
mk-sbuild unstable;
schroot unstable;

will get you in an unstable chroot which you can use to build packages.
[schroot+sbuild is what Debian developers often use instead of pbuilder,
but either approach works.]


Took out mk-sbuild for a whirl. What I didn't like at all: when you
invoke a command and it goes out and starts installing packages for
you (and doing other assorted sysadmin tasks).

Pretty heavy-handed, if you ask me. YMMV.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsiR8sACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYirgCfVtkknb0sQHxAMf26LFWq20PA
2GsAnRB7zxFJQtbUvm/zure+47es9fhx
=jWOu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Irek Szcześniak wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing out pbuilder, I think I'll give it a try.  I also might
> > want to try virtual containers, but it seems like an overkill.
> 
> You might also try out schroot.
> 
> Something like:
> 
> apt-get install schroot ubuntu-dev-tools;
> mk-sbuild unstable;
> schroot unstable;
> 
> will get you in an unstable chroot which you can use to build packages.
> [schroot+sbuild is what Debian developers often use instead of pbuilder,
> but either approach works.]

Took out mk-sbuild for a whirl. What I didn't like at all: when you
invoke a command and it goes out and starts installing packages for
you (and doing other assorted sysadmin tasks). 

Pretty heavy-handed, if you ask me. YMMV.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsiR8sACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYirgCfVtkknb0sQHxAMf26LFWq20PA
2GsAnRB7zxFJQtbUvm/zure+47es9fhx
=jWOu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:44:59AM +0200, Irek Szcześniak wrote:
> Tomás, thank you again for your email.
> 
> I didn't finally try pbuilder, because compiling GCC solved my
> problem. If something goes wrong, I'll use schroot.  Thanks for
> pointing out pbuilder, it may come handy one day!

Glad you solved it :-)

Collaterally, I learnt about schroot, so thanks for this one as
well.

Cheers
- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsiMsgACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYQhwCfX8Ff3aD+aQpFfMPv0BFyi3cN
9yYAni+0aT9atlDxQ2R/5cTZxuJ3WpK2
=tdPR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[Irek Szcześniak]

Tomás, thank you again for your email.

I didn't finally try pbuilder, because compiling GCC solved my problem. 
If something goes wrong, I'll use schroot.  Thanks for pointing out 
pbuilder, it may come handy one day!



Best,
Irek

On 13.06.2018 12:20, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:06:21PM +0200, Irek Szcześniak wrote:

Thanks, Tomás, for your email.

I should have written before that I don't want the GCC 7 to be a
system-wide compiler, along with libraries and some other
dependencies. I need GCC 7 to compile my own code (C++17) that I
run.  I don't need to distribute the binaries.


I see. Then pbuilder might well be an option (you might end up
having to run your application in the chroot, but hey).


Yes, GCC 7 is not in the backports, so it's not an option.  There
might be some Debian packages with GCC 7, but I worry about making a
FrankenDebian, and the ensuing dependency and linking problems.


Yeah -- I already mixed a newer version of GCC back then by enabling
testing into a stable and survived it (actually for a year's period,
on my main work machine) but ended up with nearly 100% testing after
a while. FrankenDebian isn't as bad as its reputation, but you want
to watch your step. Aptitude tends to become unusable after a while
(its dependency resolver seems to intelligent to master that much
chaos), but apt-get/apt can cope.

So if you know what you're doing and you are a bit fearless,
FrankenDebian isn't *that* bad. Not recommended for beginners and
those who just want peace with their computers, for sure.


Thanks for pointing out pbuilder, I think I'll give it a try.  I
also might want to try virtual containers, but it seems like an
overkill.

I might later drop an email to the debian-gcc mailing list.


Yes, perhaps someone gets nudged into backporting (actually you
might try yourself: just download the gcc-7 source package, its
build dependencies (apt-get build-dep) and build away, but gcc
is of course daunting, so you most probably end up shaving
a king-size yak :-)

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsg7/0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZCGgCfajN8v/e4CdGJDWGLuLYGqmxy
Kk0Anim4iK08WHgGK5wn8thy2mpgMH2F
=0/m3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[Irek Szcześniak]

Thank you, Don, for your advice!

I tried schroot, and it's awesome!  I followed the steps on:

https://wiki.debian.org/Schroot

I was able to build my code just as on Buster.  The difference between 
schroot and chroot is that with schroot you have assess to the files 
outside the root directory of chroot (like /srv/chroot/buster), and I'm 
thinking specifically about the home directory.


Thanks!


Best,
Irek

On 13.06.2018 17:37, Don Armstrong wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Irek Szcześniak wrote:

Thanks for pointing out pbuilder, I think I'll give it a try.  I also might
want to try virtual containers, but it seems like an overkill.


You might also try out schroot.

Something like:

apt-get install schroot ubuntu-dev-tools;
mk-sbuild unstable;
schroot unstable;

will get you in an unstable chroot which you can use to build packages.
[schroot+sbuild is what Debian developers often use instead of pbuilder,
but either approach works.]

Re: GCC 7

[Irek Szcześniak]

Georgi, thank you for you email.

I gave it a try.  On Stretch, GCC 8.1 compiled and installed cleanly.  I 
put the path to the gcc binary (/usr/local/gcc-8.1.0/bin) in my PATH, 
and I compiled and ran my code without any other configuration.  I 
expected some linking problems, but the binary dynamically links to the 
system libraries, and things are OK.  Cool!  Thanks again!



Best,
Irek

On 13.06.2018 23:43, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:

On 06/13/2018 11:04 AM, Irek Szcześniak wrote:

Hi,

I need GCC 7 on my Debian Stretch.  Previously I upgraded my Stretch to
Testing (Buster), but I ran to some problems, and reinstalled the system
back to Stretch.

Could someone offer an advice on how to get a working GCC 7 on Debian
Stretch, without upgrading to Testing?


Another option could be to build GCC-7 yourself from source. Don't
forget to use appropriate prefix when you run "configure".

Kind regards
Georgi

Re: GCC 7

[Georgi Naplatanov]

On 06/13/2018 11:04 AM, Irek Szcześniak wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I need GCC 7 on my Debian Stretch.  Previously I upgraded my Stretch to
> Testing (Buster), but I ran to some problems, and reinstalled the system
> back to Stretch.
> 
> Could someone offer an advice on how to get a working GCC 7 on Debian
> Stretch, without upgrading to Testing?

Another option could be to build GCC-7 yourself from source. Don't
forget to use appropriate prefix when you run "configure".

Kind regards
Georgi

Re: GCC 7

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Irek Szcześniak wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out pbuilder, I think I'll give it a try.  I also might
> want to try virtual containers, but it seems like an overkill.

You might also try out schroot.

Something like:

apt-get install schroot ubuntu-dev-tools;
mk-sbuild unstable;
schroot unstable;

will get you in an unstable chroot which you can use to build packages.
[schroot+sbuild is what Debian developers often use instead of pbuilder,
but either approach works.]

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

The smallest quantity of bread that can be sliced and toasted has yet
to be experimentally determined. In the quantum limit we must
necessarily encounter fundamental toast particles which the author
will unflinchingly designate here as "croutons".
 -- Cser, Jim. Nanotechnology and the Physical Limits of Toastability.
AIR 1:3, June, 1995.

Re: GCC 7

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:06:21PM +0200, Irek Szcześniak wrote:
> Thanks, Tomás, for your email.
> 
> I should have written before that I don't want the GCC 7 to be a
> system-wide compiler, along with libraries and some other
> dependencies. I need GCC 7 to compile my own code (C++17) that I
> run.  I don't need to distribute the binaries.

I see. Then pbuilder might well be an option (you might end up
having to run your application in the chroot, but hey).

> Yes, GCC 7 is not in the backports, so it's not an option.  There
> might be some Debian packages with GCC 7, but I worry about making a
> FrankenDebian, and the ensuing dependency and linking problems.

Yeah -- I already mixed a newer version of GCC back then by enabling
testing into a stable and survived it (actually for a year's period,
on my main work machine) but ended up with nearly 100% testing after
a while. FrankenDebian isn't as bad as its reputation, but you want
to watch your step. Aptitude tends to become unusable after a while
(its dependency resolver seems to intelligent to master that much
chaos), but apt-get/apt can cope.

So if you know what you're doing and you are a bit fearless,
FrankenDebian isn't *that* bad. Not recommended for beginners and
those who just want peace with their computers, for sure.

> Thanks for pointing out pbuilder, I think I'll give it a try.  I
> also might want to try virtual containers, but it seems like an
> overkill.
> 
> I might later drop an email to the debian-gcc mailing list.

Yes, perhaps someone gets nudged into backporting (actually you
might try yourself: just download the gcc-7 source package, its
build dependencies (apt-get build-dep) and build away, but gcc
is of course daunting, so you most probably end up shaving
a king-size yak :-)

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsg7/0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZCGgCfajN8v/e4CdGJDWGLuLYGqmxy
Kk0Anim4iK08WHgGK5wn8thy2mpgMH2F
=0/m3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[Irek Szcześniak]

Thanks, Tomás, for your email.

I should have written before that I don't want the GCC 7 to be a 
system-wide compiler, along with libraries and some other dependencies. 
I need GCC 7 to compile my own code (C++17) that I run.  I don't need to 
distribute the binaries.


Yes, GCC 7 is not in the backports, so it's not an option.  There might 
be some Debian packages with GCC 7, but I worry about making a 
FrankenDebian, and the ensuing dependency and linking problems.


Thanks for pointing out pbuilder, I think I'll give it a try.  I also 
might want to try virtual containers, but it seems like an overkill.


I might later drop an email to the debian-gcc mailing list.


Best,
Irek

On 13.06.2018 11:21, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:04:25AM +0200, Irek Szcześniak wrote:

Hi,

I need GCC 7 on my Debian Stretch.  Previously I upgraded my Stretch
to Testing (Buster), but I ran to some problems, and reinstalled the
system back to Stretch.

Could someone offer an advice on how to get a working GCC 7 on
Debian Stretch, without upgrading to Testing?


Backports would be a place to go. There seem to be others in your
situation:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2018/04/msg00137.html

(but I haven't seen an answer to this request in that mailing
list).

Perhaps pinging debian-gcc list is a good idea.

Alternatively, if you just want to build for testing, some
pbuilder (chroot) setup might help, but then your program
might want to link to newer core libraries...

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsg4hoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZFiwCeLK2EU23uSBz2rpyW+rHLPfjz
Z8gAn1W7qif93Zdn1f49C4TW3Yex4NsZ
=qVRK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GCC 7

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:04:25AM +0200, Irek Szcześniak wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I need GCC 7 on my Debian Stretch.  Previously I upgraded my Stretch
> to Testing (Buster), but I ran to some problems, and reinstalled the
> system back to Stretch.
> 
> Could someone offer an advice on how to get a working GCC 7 on
> Debian Stretch, without upgrading to Testing?

Backports would be a place to go. There seem to be others in your
situation:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2018/04/msg00137.html

(but I haven't seen an answer to this request in that mailing
list).

Perhaps pinging debian-gcc list is a good idea.

Alternatively, if you just want to build for testing, some
pbuilder (chroot) setup might help, but then your program
might want to link to newer core libraries...

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsg4hoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZFiwCeLK2EU23uSBz2rpyW+rHLPfjz
Z8gAn1W7qif93Zdn1f49C4TW3Yex4NsZ
=qVRK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: gcc-doc in stretch

[Steven Tan]

Thanks for clarifying.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Christian Seiler  wrote:

> On 08/06/2016 04:08 PM, Steven Tan wrote:
> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc-doc&;
> searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all
> > It looks like the package gcc-doc is not provided in stretch, not even in
> > contrib or non-free, but the package is provided in jessie and sid.
> >
> > Is this a bug or intended?
>
> Well, it's a bug, but in gcc-doc. It currently fails to build
> from source, and the maintainer hasn't fixed it yet, so it
> was autoremoved from testing a month or so ago:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825320
> https://tracker.debian.org/news/782354
>
> Once that bug is fixed, it can reenter testing. (Assuming no
> other RC bug is filed in the mean time.)
>
> Regards,
> Christian
>

Re: gcc-doc in stretch

[Christian Seiler]

On 08/06/2016 04:08 PM, Steven Tan wrote:
> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc-doc&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all
> It looks like the package gcc-doc is not provided in stretch, not even in
> contrib or non-free, but the package is provided in jessie and sid.
> 
> Is this a bug or intended?

Well, it's a bug, but in gcc-doc. It currently fails to build
from source, and the maintainer hasn't fixed it yet, so it
was autoremoved from testing a month or so ago:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825320
https://tracker.debian.org/news/782354

Once that bug is fixed, it can reenter testing. (Assuming no
other RC bug is filed in the mean time.)

Regards,
Christian

Re: gcc and associated pkgs

[Chris Bannister]

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 06:29:27PM -0500, Brad Alexander wrote:
> What versions of gcc is it safe to remove? I have gcc 4.{1..8} installed on
> a box, and I'm fairly sure I can get rid of at least 4.1 - 4.6. Also, what
> associated packages should be removed with it? Should I get rid of
> equivalent versions of gcc, gcc-base, cpp? Anything else?

If you don't do any compiling, why keep any of them? Of course, if you
do then only you know which ones you want.

I'd just purge the ones I don't want, and if another package depends on
it, I'd see if I want that one, if not purge it - repeat til satisfied.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140210031310.GA22032@tal

Re: [r...@verizon.net: Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?]

[rbmj]

On 05/21/2012 06:20 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:

Hi, rbmj,

Please keep messages on list.
Read:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/

If you are not subscribed, you will not rec replies to your queries!
Weird, I know, butI thought I'd seen emails from you before hence
thought you were subscribed.



Sorry about that.  I wasn't paying attention and hit reply instead of 
reply list.  It's people like me that convince some people to munge 
reply-tos :-D.



If debian-embedd is the wrong list, then please let the list know so
that, hopefully, the mistake will only be made once.


I looked at the mailing list list, and debian-embedded says its for 
"Debian on embedded systems".  Now, the cross compiler I'm creating 
doesn't target Debian, but VxWorks, so my gut reaction is that it would 
*not* be the proper mailing list.  But I don't know the community over 
there.  It does mention that there is a debian-gcc list, but that says 
its for gcc maintainers.  Now, those may be the people most 
knowledgeable about my question, but at the same time, it might be 
considered off topic there.


Sorry again,

--
rbmj



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fbe35b7@verizon.net

[r...@verizon.net: Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?]

[Chris Bannister]

Hi, rbmj,

Please keep messages on list.
Read:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/

If you are not subscribed, you will not rec replies to your queries!
Weird, I know, butI thought I'd seen emails from you before hence
thought you were subscribed.

If debian-embedd is the wrong list, then please let the list know so
that, hopefully, the mistake will only be made once.

- Forwarded message from rbmj  -

Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:34:27 -0400
From: rbmj 
To: Chris Bannister 
Subject: Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?

On 05/20/2012 11:33 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00:59PM -0400, rbmj wrote:
>> Bump...  Am I posting this on the wrong list?
> Did you see:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/05/msg01511.html
> 

I did not see that.  Thanks for the tip - I'll check that out.

On 05/20/2012 05:27 AM, keith wrote:
> Maybe; take a look here http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

I am on gcc-help, however the problem is not related to building the
cross compiler.  That much is fine.  What I am having trouble with is
the using the debian toolchain so that I can get proper (i.e. fit for
distribution, so not checkinstall style) debian packages out of the
customized compiler.

Thanks,

--
rbmj

- End forwarded message -

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120521102058.GB24726@tal

Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?

[rbmj]

On 05/20/2012 11:33 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00:59PM -0400, rbmj wrote:

Bump...  Am I posting this on the wrong list?

Did you see:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/05/msg01511.html



I did not see that.  Thanks for the tip - I'll check that out.

On 05/20/2012 05:27 AM, keith wrote:
Maybe; take a look here http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html 


I am on gcc-help, however the problem is not related to building the 
cross compiler.  That much is fine.  What I am having trouble with is 
the using the debian toolchain so that I can get proper (i.e. fit for 
distribution, so not checkinstall style) debian packages out of the 
customized compiler.


Thanks,

--
rbmj


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fb91d47.2080...@verizon.net

Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?

[Chris Bannister]

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00:59PM -0400, rbmj wrote:
> Bump...  Am I posting this on the wrong list?

Did you see:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/05/msg01511.html

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120520153300.GT31474@tal

Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?

[keith]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 22:00:59 -0400
rbmj  wrote:

> On 05/14/2012 08:49 PM, rbmj wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > So, I want to create packages for a cross compiler targeting 
> > powerpc-wrs-vxworks on Wheezy.  I don't exactly know how to approach 
[]
> Bump...  Am I posting this on the wrong list?
> 
> --
> rbmj


Maybe; take a look here 

http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

-- 
keith 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120520102745.b4959fd73e34c2c6588ff...@gmail.com

Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?

[rbmj]

On 05/14/2012 08:49 PM, rbmj wrote:

Hi all,

So, I want to create packages for a cross compiler targeting 
powerpc-wrs-vxworks on Wheezy.  I don't exactly know how to approach 
the problem.


With binutils it's easy enough to just grab the sources with apt-get 
source and then run 'TARGET=powerpc-wrs-vxworks debuild'.  However, 
it's a little different with gcc.


With GCC, it's a little more difficult.  I need to have a little more 
control over the flags passed to configure.  At the same time, the 
debian/rules et al for gcc is _very_ intimidating.  I could make my 
own source package, but that seems like a lot of duplicated effort.  
At the same time, because I need a very specialized build (I need to 
add a dependency on a custom package, add some patches, and exactly 
control configure flags) that seems like the only option available to 
me.  PLEASE, stop me now if I'm not seeing the solution in front of my 
face - I really did try to sort through all of the debian sources!


On the other hand, it seems like it would be nice if environment 
variables for build/host/target and appending to configure flags is 
standardized and documented.  It may be (/probably is), but I didn't 
see it :-(, at least for pre-written debian/rules scripts - debhelper 
>= 7 makes everything easier if you're writing from scratch.


One more thing- why are there so many build-depends for gcc?  I've 
successfully built gcc many times before and never needed all of those 
- just the compiler, mpfr-dev, mpc-dev, gmp-dev, and build-essential.  
Please forgive the ignorance :-)


OK, so how I would try to do this is I would make two directories, 
gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.7-src.  I would make a script in gcc-4.7, and name 
it configure:


#!/bin/sh

../gcc-4.7-src/configure "$@"

Then I'd run dh_make -p..., edit debian/*, and then in debian/rules:

#!/usr/bin/make -f
export DH_OPTIONS

override_dh_auto_configure:
dh_auto_configure -- \
--target=powerpc-wrs-vxworks \
#lots of compile options, etc.

%:
dh $@  --with autotools-dev

Then, hopefully, just a simple debuild would work.Then I'd just 
copy over the debian/control files from my box and edit them 
appropriately.


Any feedback/sanity checking would be AWESOME.  Thank you all,


Bump...  Am I posting this on the wrong list?

--
rbmj


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fb8505b.6070...@verizon.net

Re: GCC - Best way to build cross compiler?

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 08:49:36PM -0400, rbmj wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> So, I want to create packages for a cross compiler targeting
> powerpc-wrs-vxworks on Wheezy.  I don't exactly know how to approach
> the problem.

You'll _probably_ have better luck on the debian-embedded mailing list,
mainly because it involves "a cross compiler".

-- 
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
   -- Napoleon Bonaparte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120515033015.GA15411@tal

Re: gcc using Pipes Some Progress

[lee]

Martin McCormick  writes:

> Ivan Jager writes:
> if( write(leftchannel_pipe[1], &leftbyte, 1) < 0)
>  if ((leftchannel_pipe[0] = fdopen(leftdata,"r")) == NULL) {

And leftchannel_pipe is supposed to be an array?  Without seeing more of
your program, we're left in the dark ...


-- 
html messages are obsolete


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762n3d62z@yun.yagibdah.de

Re: gcc using Pipes

[Ivan Jager]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 06:30:21AM -0500, Martin McCormick scribbled:
> #After the step, we should have two file descriptors.
> (gdb) output leftchannel_pipe
> {7, 8}
[...]
> #that also looks right, but let's try to write to leftchannel_pipe.
> main () at 2pipes.c:98
> 98  fwrite(&leftbyte,sizeof(leftbyte),1,leftchannel_pipe[1]);
> (gdb) step
> 
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0xb76a78d1 in fwrite () from /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> 
>   That looks like what you get when confusing the contents
> of a pointer with the name of that pointer but the fwrite
> statement is what I used when writing to a normal file and that
> worked.

It also happens when you try to use 7 as a pointer.

Note that fwrite does not take a file descriptor but a FILE*. I'm
not sure what options you're passing gcc, but I would have
expected it to at least warn you that you were passing an int as
a pointer.

Rather than using fwrite() you could just use write(), which takes a
file descriptor. Alternately, if you really want to use fwrite or
other stdio functions rather than the *nix syscalls, you could
use fdopen() to get a FILE* corresponding to the pipe's fd.

If you check the pipe manpage, you'll find an example of how to
use pipes.

Also, I'm not sure what kind of modules you're writing, but if
they both live in the same address space, then using pipes is
like calling your cellphone from your work phone so that you can
talk to yourself. If your modules are separate processes, then
that's exactly what pipes are for.

Ivan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110714162537.ga26...@mrph.org

Re: gcc: A while Loop Always Skips its first Statement.

[Jangita]

On 20/08/2010 3:43 p, Martin McCormick wrote:

Jangita writes:

Not a question for this list but


Sorry.



1. Is there any statement in the while loop that changes NEXTSYS? (or
better still, send any statement that has NEXTSYS in it while inside the
loop)

Yes! I didn't even think about that but there is a test inside
that loop whose result turns NEXTSYS off. I am not in front of
the program, but that has got to be the problem. Many thanks.

Martin


Happens to all of us (especially after hours of coding). No worries. 
Good luck.


--
Jangita | +256 76 91 8383 | Y! & MSN: jang...@yahoo.com
Skype: jangita | GTalk: jangita.nyag...@gmail.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c6e8d24.4040...@jangita.com

Re: gcc: A while Loop Always Skips its first Statement.

[Martin McCormick]

Jangita writes:
> Not a question for this list but

Sorry.

> 
> 1. Is there any statement in the while loop that changes NEXTSYS? (or
> better still, send any statement that has NEXTSYS in it while inside the
> loop)
Yes! I didn't even think about that but there is a test inside
that loop whose result turns NEXTSYS off. I am not in front of
the program, but that has got to be the problem. Many thanks.

Martin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201008201342.o7kdg0nw065...@x.it.okstate.edu

Re: gcc: A while Loop Always Skips its first Statement.

[hugo vanwoerkom]

Martin McCormick wrote:

I have written some C code that appeared to be good until I put
a while statement in to one of the modules and then all went to
at least Purgatory. It all compiles beautifully but I was
alerted to something terribly wrong when the program began
misbehaving. I can't even say that it is flaky because it does
exactly the same wrong things every time without fail.

There is a variable I call NEXTSYS which is boolean and
my while statement now looks like:

while (NEXTSYS) { /*code to execute if NEXTSYS does not = 0*/
C statements (It doesn't seem to matter what statements);
} /*code to execute if NEXTSYS does not = 0*/

What happens every time is that gdb traces perfectly up
to the while statement, skips it, and executes the statements
inside the braces. After that, it is in the while loop and
execution looks normal but the damage is already done. I have
also seen it trace the wile statement and then skip the next
executable statement in the loop no matter what it is.

Reading about the while loop tells me that the statement
after while must be true to execute. If I put a boolean variable
inside the statement as in (NEXTSYS) does that make a true
statement if it is not 0 and false if it is?

Thanks for any constructive answers.


I'd rather do it in code and use caps for compiler defines and lower 
case for program variables. Also I prefer to use C++ because it debugs 
better and I don't use gdb because it is too fine grained but rather use 
printf statements, like this:


#define NEXTSYS 1
#include 


int main( int argc, char **argv, char **envp )
{
int count = 0;
while ( NEXTSYS ) {
printf("Inside the while loop, count = %d (%d)\n",count,__LINE__);
count++;
if ( count > 10 )
break;
}
printf("Outside of the while loop, count = %d (%d)\n",count,__LINE__);
return 0;
}


and running it:


h...@debian:/sda7/hda10/backup.files/fromhd/home/hugo/gpc-qt4-002$ 
./do_martin

Inside the while loop, count = 0 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 1 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 2 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 3 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 4 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 5 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 6 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 7 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 8 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 9 (9)
Inside the while loop, count = 10 (9)
Outside of the while loop, count = 11 (14)




Hugo








--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/i4m1g1$pu...@dough.gmane.org

Re: gcc: A while Loop Always Skips its first Statement.

[Martin McCormick]

Jangita writes:
> Not a question for this list but

Sorry.

> 
> 1. Is there any statement in the while loop that changes NEXTSYS? (or
> better still, send any statement that has NEXTSYS in it while inside the
> loop)
Yes! I didn't even think about that but there is a test inside
that loop whose result turns NEXTSYS off. I am not in front of
the program, but that has got to be the problem. Many thanks.

Martin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201008201343.o7kdhvwx095...@dc.cis.okstate.edu

Re: gcc: A while Loop Always Skips its first Statement.

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2010-08-20 08:01:46 -0500, Martin McCormick wrote:
[...]
>   Reading about the while loop tells me that the statement

Actually, that's an expression, not a statement.

> after while must be true to execute. If I put a boolean variable
> inside the statement as in (NEXTSYS) does that make a true
> statement if it is not 0 and false if it is?

There's a 3rd possibility: you have an undefined behavior, e.g.
because the expression uses an uninitialized value, in which case
the compiler can assume anything, and debugging with gdb wouldn't
necessarily help.

Just in case, compile with -Wall, and -O0 if you want to use gdb.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100820133601.gh16...@prunille.vinc17.org

Re: gcc: A while Loop Always Skips its first Statement.

[Ron Johnson]

On 08/20/2010 08:01 AM, Martin McCormick wrote:

I have written some C code that appeared to be good until I put
a while statement in to one of the modules and then all went to
at least Purgatory. It all compiles beautifully but I was
alerted to something terribly wrong when the program began
misbehaving. I can't even say that it is flaky because it does
exactly the same wrong things every time without fail.

There is a variable I call NEXTSYS which is boolean and
my while statement now looks like:

while (NEXTSYS) { /*code to execute if NEXTSYS does not = 0*/
C statements (It doesn't seem to matter what statements);
} /*code to execute if NEXTSYS does not = 0*/

What happens every time is that gdb traces perfectly up
to the while statement, skips it, and executes the statements
inside the braces. After that, it is in the while loop and
execution looks normal but the damage is already done. I have
also seen it trace the wile statement and then skip the next
executable statement in the loop no matter what it is.

Reading about the while loop tells me that the statement
after while must be true to execute. If I put a boolean variable
inside the statement as in (NEXTSYS) does that make a true
statement if it is not 0 and false if it is?



What happens when you Google "C true false" or write a test program 
that does:


while ( 1 == 1 )
{
blah
}

while ( 1 )
{
blah
}

while ( 0 )
{
blah
}


--
Seek truth from facts.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c6e83a4.4080...@cox.net

Re: gcc: A while Loop Always Skips its first Statement.

[Jangita]

On 20/08/2010 3:01 p, Martin McCormick wrote:

I have written some C code that appeared to be good until I put
a while statement in to one of the modules and then all went to
at least Purgatory. It all compiles beautifully but I was
alerted to something terribly wrong when the program began
misbehaving. I can't even say that it is flaky because it does
exactly the same wrong things every time without fail.

There is a variable I call NEXTSYS which is boolean and
my while statement now looks like:

while (NEXTSYS) { /*code to execute if NEXTSYS does not = 0*/
C statements (It doesn't seem to matter what statements);
} /*code to execute if NEXTSYS does not = 0*/

What happens every time is that gdb traces perfectly up
to the while statement, skips it, and executes the statements
inside the braces. After that, it is in the while loop and
execution looks normal but the damage is already done. I have
also seen it trace the wile statement and then skip the next
executable statement in the loop no matter what it is.

Reading about the while loop tells me that the statement
after while must be true to execute. If I put a boolean variable
inside the statement as in (NEXTSYS) does that make a true
statement if it is not 0 and false if it is?

Thanks for any constructive answers.
Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
Systems Engineer
OSU Information Technology Department Telecommunications Services Group



Not a question for this list but
1. Is there any statement in the while loop that changes NEXTSYS? (or 
better still, send any statement that has NEXTSYS in it while inside the 
loop)

2. Is there any statement *before* the while loop that initializes NEXTSYS

Maybe try printing the value of NEXTSYS before the loop and once while 
into the loop?

--
Jangita | +256 76 91 8383 | Y! & MSN: jang...@yahoo.com
Skype: jangita | GTalk: jangita.nyag...@gmail.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c6e80a3.9010...@jangita.com

Re: gcc 3.3 in Lenny

[Sven Joachim]

On 2009-08-27 19:24 +0200, David A. Parker wrote:

> I'm trying to build something in Debian Lenny (x86 32-bit) from old
> source code that needs gcc 3.3 but the oldest version I see in the
> repository is 3.4.  Is there any way to get packages for gcc versions
> older than 3.4 under Lenny?

Surely, install the gcc-3.3 package from Etch.

Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GCC

[Mark Allums]

Johan Grönqvist wrote:

simon h skrev:

I wonder why Debian needs three versions of the GCC compiler: 4.1, 4.2,
and 4.3? Shouldn't one be enough? Is it because the compiler has no
down-compatibility?


I think that is the reason, yes. I also think that lack of manpower is 
the reason there are not even more (older) versions of gcc in debian.


At , you can see that there are 
changes between versions that can break certain programs. I was recently 
asked for advice by someone that needs a 3.x version of gcc.


(For completeness: I will suggest debootstrap/schroot for running gcc3.X 
without affecting his current installation.)



When you install a later version, it doesn't necessarily become the new 
default GCC.  For example, even though I have installed GCC 4.4 on my 
machine, 4.3 is still the version I get when I type gcc --version. 
Again, this is generally because the kernel and other system programs 
were probably compiled using it.


To use 4.4, I can specify 4.4 on the command line:

#gcc-4.4 -o hello hello.c


When building a large program than has been packaged by Debian, or in 
the usual GNU .tar.gz/.tgz style, (something that uses make) one can 
usually set an environment variable:


#export CC=gcc-4.4
#./configure
#make
#make install
#export CC=


Or even just:

#CC=gcc-4.4; ./configure; make; make install


Hope this helps,

Mark Allums






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GCC

[Mark Allums]

Johan Grönqvist wrote:

simon h skrev:

I wonder why Debian needs three versions of the GCC compiler: 4.1, 4.2,
and 4.3? Shouldn't one be enough? Is it because the compiler has no
down-compatibility?


I think that is the reason, yes. I also think that lack of manpower is 
the reason there are not even more (older) versions of gcc in debian.


At , you can see that there are 
changes between versions that can break certain programs. I was recently 
asked for advice by someone that needs a 3.x version of gcc.


(For completeness: I will suggest debootstrap/schroot for running gcc3.X 
without affecting his current installation.)


Yes, GCC is not downward compatible in many cases.  There is no 
particular motivation for this because the old version is always still 
available, and multiple versions can be installed side by side.


An example of the need to keep an old version around is the kernel. 
Recent kernels use GCC 4.3, but just prior to that, kernels were 
compiled using 4.1.  Kernel modules must be compiled using the same 
compiler as the kernel itself, thus the need to keep both around.


Mark Allums




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GCC

[Johan Grönqvist]

simon h skrev:

I wonder why Debian needs three versions of the GCC compiler: 4.1, 4.2,
and 4.3? Shouldn't one be enough? Is it because the compiler has no
down-compatibility?


I think that is the reason, yes. I also think that lack of manpower is 
the reason there are not even more (older) versions of gcc in debian.


At , you can see that there are 
changes between versions that can break certain programs. I was recently 
asked for advice by someone that needs a 3.x version of gcc.


(For completeness: I will suggest debootstrap/schroot for running gcc3.X 
without affecting his current installation.)



/ johan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: gcc-avr update problem

[Umarzuki Mochlis]

2009/6/17 J.Hwan.Kim 

> Hi, everyone
>
> I'm using gcc-avr in etch.
>
> If I upgrade my debian to lenny and wish to use gcc-avr etch version not
> lenny version,
> how can I install gcc-avr and avr other package of etch in lenny
> environment?


maybe apt pinnning can be of use

>
>
> Regards,
> J.H.Kim
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Umarzuki Mochlis
http://gameornot.net

Re: GCC

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

In , Miguel Obliviemo 
wrote:
>Has anyone noticed any problems with Lenny's gcc 4.3.2?  Okay, I know
>it's impossible.
>
>But I'm imagining that I see a ${SOMETHING} in CFLAGS in the Makefile
>not being expanded on Lenny amd64 when it is set in the environment,
>but the identical code working (oops, being expanded) on an older
>non-Debian computer.

That doesn't actually sound like a gcc problem.  Your shell is responsible 
for expanding ${VARIABLE} stuff and make is responsible for expanding 
$(VARIABLE) stuff.  Gcc doesn't expand either, AFAIK.

Could you provide a small, concrete example?
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.   ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net  ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: GCC

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2009-05-13 21:43:14 +0930, Miguel Obliviemo wrote:
> Has anyone noticed any problems with Lenny's gcc 4.3.2?  Okay, I know
> it's impossible.

Yes: it is buggy. In particular, it doesn't build GMP 4.3.0 correctly
(I haven't looked at GMP 4.3.1 yet under lenny). The bug has been
fixed upstream (and in Debian/unstable), but it seems that there's
no hope to have it fixed in lenny. :(

FYI: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=524472

Otherwise I don't know what's your problem.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GCC compiler

[John L Fjellstad]

Cédric Lucantis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This is documented in the make info page, under section 6.5 "How to use 
> variables/Setting". I don't know if this is specific to gnu make or not.

Thanks.  I really appreciate the explaination (I looked it up in my make
book, it the book I have was more generic and not GNU make specific).

-- 
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC compiler

[Cédric Lucantis]

Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 19:40, John L Fjellstad a écrit :
> "Michael Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If I'm using GNU make, I hardly ever use "=" instead of ":=", unless I
> > really want to define a macro.  You're a lot more likely to get what
> > you expect most of the time, and you can use "+=".
>
> What's the difference?  My book on Make mentions "=", but not ":=". I
> knew about ":=" but I always thought they were pretty much the same.
>

The difference is that the value of a variable defined with := is expanded 
immediately, while with = it is only computed when used. Here's an example:

BAR = $(FOO)
FOO = some value

all:
@echo "BAR = $(BAR)"

the BAR variable will here be expanded to "some value", but if you write 
BAR := $(FOO) instead, it will be expanded to an empty string because FOO is 
undefined at this time. That's why you can only use += with a variable 
defined with := , because it wouldn't make sense in the other case. That's 
also why (I guess) Michael says that you're more likely to get what you 
expect with := , because it's closer to what happens with other scripting 
languages. It's true that the = syntax can be quite tricky and is often the 
cause of hard to find bugs, but it's also often useful.

This is documented in the make info page, under section 6.5 "How to use 
variables/Setting". I don't know if this is specific to gnu make or not.

-- 
Cédric Lucantis

Re: GCC compiler

[John L Fjellstad]

"Michael Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If I'm using GNU make, I hardly ever use "=" instead of ":=", unless I
> really want to define a macro.  You're a lot more likely to get what
> you expect most of the time, and you can use "+=".

What's the difference?  My book on Make mentions "=", but not ":=". I
knew about ":=" but I always thought they were pretty much the same.

-- 
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC compiler

[Michael Marsh]

On 4/29/07, Cédric Lucantis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 04:56, Micha Feigin a écrit:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:20:08 -0300
> "Iuri Sampaio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $(BIN): $(OBJS)
> >
> > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $(BIN) $(OBJS) $(LIBS)
> >

Not really an answer, but this is wrong too, you should have something like
this instead:

OBJS = rotation.o

BIN = rotation

$(BIN): $(OBJS)
$(CC) -o $@ $^ $(LIBS)

%.o: %.c
$(CC) -c -o $@ $< $(CFLAGS)

but with only one source file it doesn't really matter


This rule for %.o is, I believe, identical to the implicit rule.  I
always use something like:

SOURCES := rotation.c
or
SOURCES := $(wildcard *.c)

LDFLAGS += $(LIBS)

OBJS := $(patsubst %.c,%.o,$(SOURCES))
BINS := $(patsubst %.o,%,$(OBJS))

default : rotation
or
default : $(BINS)

% : %.o
$(CC) -o $@ $< $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS)

If I'm using GNU make, I hardly ever use "=" instead of ":=", unless I
really want to define a macro.  You're a lot more likely to get what
you expect most of the time, and you can use "+=".

--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
http://36pints.blogspot.com

Re: GCC compiler

[Cédric Lucantis]

Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 04:56, Micha Feigin a écrit :
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:20:08 -0300
>
> "Iuri Sampaio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I tried to compile a C source code, using make command:
> >
> >
> >
> > The Makefile script is:
> >
> >
> >
> > BINDIR = ./
> >
> > LIBDIR = /foo/im/lib/Linux24
> >
> > INCLUDE = /foo/im/include
> >
> >
> >
> > CC = gcc
> >
> > CFLAGS = -g -I$(INCLUDE)
> >
> > LIBS = $(LIBDIR)/libim.a $(LIBDIR)/libim.so \
> > -lm -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11
>
> You are linking against libim twice, once static and once dynamic, what you
> may mean is
>
> LIBS = -L$(LIBDIR) -lim -lm -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11
>
> > OBJS = rotation.c
> >
> > BIN = rotation
> >
> >
> >
> > $(BIN): $(OBJS)
> >
> > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $(BIN) $(OBJS) $(LIBS)
> >

Not really an answer, but this is wrong too, you should have something like 
this instead:

OBJS = rotation.o

BIN = rotation

$(BIN): $(OBJS)
$(CC) -o $@ $^ $(LIBS)

%.o: %.c
$(CC) -c -o $@ $< $(CFLAGS)

but with only one source file it doesn't really matter

> >
> >
> > install: $(BIN)
> >
> > mv $(BIN) $(BINDIR)
> >
> >
> >
> > clean:
> >
> > rm -f $(BIN) *.o *~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > but then I got this error message when I run make
> >
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/mat056/AULA28.03.07$ make
> >
> > gcc -g -I../im2_6_linux24/im/include/ -o quantizacao quantizacao.c
> > ../im2_6_Linux24/im/lib/Linux24/libim.a
> > ../im2_6_Linux24/im/lib/Linux24/libim.so -lm -L/u\
> >
> > sr/X11R6/lib -lX11
> >
> > quantizacao.c:1:16: error: im.h: No such file or directory
> >
> > quantizacao.c: In function 'main':
> >
> > quantizacao.c:12: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in
> > function 'malloc'
>
> Seems like you are not including stdlib.h so malloc is not defined
>
> > quantizacao.c:22: error: 'IM_TIF' undeclared (first use in this function)
> >
> > quantizacao.c:22: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only
> > once
> >
> > quantizacao.c:22: error: for each function it appears in.)
> >
> > make: *** [quantizacao] Error 1

Strange! What is this quantizacao file ? It doesn't appear in the makefile.

> >
> > HYPERLINK
> > "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/mat056/AULA28.03.07$"[EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED]:~/mat056/AULA28.
> >03. 07$
> >
> > I can see it’s missing the im.h of my gcc lib. Does anyone know how to
> > solve this problem? Even apt-get any lib that has im.h?
>
> what is im.h supposed to be a part of? If you don't know, than where did
> you get the code and what's its intent?

Good question ;) Maybe are you looking for libimlib ? (an image manipulation 
lib, replacement for libxpm)

>
> There is no debian package that contains im.h or libim.a or libim.so
> Only reference I found is national language support for AIX which is a
> proprietary UNIX by IBM
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > iuri sampaio

-- 
Cédric Lucantis

Re: GCC compiler

[Micha Feigin]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:20:08 -0300
"Iuri Sampaio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> I tried to compile a C source code, using make command:
> 
>  
> 
> The Makefile script is: 
> 
>  
> 
> BINDIR = ./
> 
> LIBDIR = /foo/im/lib/Linux24
> 
> INCLUDE = /foo/im/include
> 
>  
> 
> CC = gcc
> 
> CFLAGS = -g -I$(INCLUDE)
> 
> LIBS = $(LIBDIR)/libim.a $(LIBDIR)/libim.so \
> -lm -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11

You are linking against libim twice, once static and once dynamic, what you may
mean is

LIBS = -L$(LIBDIR) -lim -lm -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11

> 
>  
> 
> OBJS = rotation.c
> 
> BIN = rotation
> 
>  
> 
> $(BIN): $(OBJS)
> 
> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $(BIN) $(OBJS) $(LIBS)
> 
>  
> 
> install: $(BIN)
> 
> mv $(BIN) $(BINDIR)
> 
>  
> 
> clean:
> 
> rm -f $(BIN) *.o *~
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> but then I got this error message when I run make
> 
>  
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/mat056/AULA28.03.07$ make
> 
> gcc -g -I../im2_6_linux24/im/include/ -o quantizacao quantizacao.c
> ../im2_6_Linux24/im/lib/Linux24/libim.a
> ../im2_6_Linux24/im/lib/Linux24/libim.so -lm -L/u\
> 
> sr/X11R6/lib -lX11
> 
> quantizacao.c:1:16: error: im.h: No such file or directory
> 
> quantizacao.c: In function 'main':
> 
> quantizacao.c:12: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in
> function 'malloc'
> 

Seems like you are not including stdlib.h so malloc is not defined

> quantizacao.c:22: error: 'IM_TIF' undeclared (first use in this function)
> 
> quantizacao.c:22: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> 
> quantizacao.c:22: error: for each function it appears in.)
> 
> make: *** [quantizacao] Error 1
> 
> HYPERLINK
> "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/mat056/AULA28.03.07$"[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]:~/mat056/AULA28.03.
> 07$
> 
> I can see it’s missing the im.h of my gcc lib. Does anyone know how to solve
> this problem? Even apt-get any lib that has im.h?
> 

what is im.h supposed to be a part of? If you don't know, than where did you
get the code and what's its intent?

There is no debian package that contains im.h or libim.a or libim.so
Only reference I found is national language support for AIX which is a
proprietary UNIX by IBM

>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> iuri sampaio
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007
> 1:39 PM
>  

Re: gcc docs and linking...

[Digby Tarvin]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:18:07PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote:
> Just when I thought I just about had a Debian system that
> was complete enough to develop on without needing access
> to my older distros
> 
> Does anyone know how to fix:
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/work/audio$ man gcc
>   No manual entry for gcc
> I have tried installing the gcc-4.1-doc package, but it didn't
> seem to help. I know man pages for gcc do exist, as all my other
> (non-Debian) systems seem to have them installed out of the box..
> 
> This is a Debian Etch system on a Fujitsu notebook.
> 
> The immediate issue that led me to attempt to consult the man
> page (in case someone can point out where I am going wrong)
> was a problem statically linking the oggfile libraries.
> 
>   cc -lvorbis -lvorbisfile -static -o oggplay oggplay.o
>   oggplay.o: In function `main':
>   oggplay.c:(.text+0xe7): undefined reference to `ov_open'
>   oggplay.c:(.text+0x2b6): undefined reference to `ov_info'
>   oggplay.c:(.text+0x473): undefined reference to `ov_read'
>   oggplay.c:(.text+0x48e): undefined reference to `ov_clear'
>   collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>   make: *** [oggplay] Error 1
> 
> If I leave out the '-static' argument then the compile completes
> successfully (but using the shared version of the libs).
> 
> As far as I can see, the static library exists and defines the
> missing symbols, for example:
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/work/audio$ nm /usr/lib/libvorbisfile.a | grep ov_open
>   36e0 T ov_open
>   3470 t _ov_open1
>   2f90 t _ov_open2
>   3690 T ov_open_callbacks
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/work/audio$ nm /usr/lib/libvorbisfile.a | grep ov_info
>   03e0 T ov_info
> 
> Anyone see where I am going wrong there?

Just to answer my own question here, it appears that static linking is
more fussy about the order of arguments, and also needs to have more
libraries specified on the command line (to resolve references made by
the linked in libraries...

In my case, the following command line worked:
 cc oggplay.o -lvorbisfile -lvorbis -logg -lm -static -o oggplay

Regards,
DigbyT
-- 
Digby R. S. Tarvin  digbyt(at)digbyt.com
http://www.digbyt.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc docs and linking...

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 01/30/07 13:18, Digby Tarvin wrote:
> Just when I thought I just about had a Debian system that
> was complete enough to develop on without needing access
> to my older distros
> 
> Does anyone know how to fix:
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/work/audio$ man gcc
>   No manual entry for gcc
> I have tried installing the gcc-4.1-doc package, but it didn't
> seem to help. I know man pages for gcc do exist, as all my other
> (non-Debian) systems seem to have them installed out of the box..

Try:
$ man gcc-4.1


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFv6JKS9HxQb37XmcRAiotAKCg1NUT4f5H7F/TEbtdYEI2gFEyEgCff0ON
V3TTT9xwkusHY0eIiHaAhk4=
=Lts/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc version used to compile the kernel

[Pollywog]

On Sunday 29 October 2006 02:09, Pollywog wrote:
> On Sunday 29 October 2006 02:01, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> > > I believe the errors are due to incorrect gcc versions used to compile
> > > the module and the kernel. I am using
> >
> > Hmm, you have to be root to insmod the drivers.
>
> Shouldn't one use modprobe with current versions of Linux?
> Of course, that would not change the fact that one has to be root.
>
> I had problems recently when I upgraded to the 2.6.17 kernel.
> I was unable to compile the fuse and nvidia modules, so I downgraded gcc
> and g++ to 4.0 (from 4.1) and that did the trick.

n I made a mistake in that post.  I did not downgrade, I just changed the 
g++ and gcc symlinks to point to the 4.0 versions.


8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc version used to compile the kernel

[Kamaraju Kusumanchi]

On Saturday 28 October 2006 22:01, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 the mental interface of
>
> Kamaraju Kusumanchi told:
> > Hi all
> > How can I find the gcc version that was used to compile the kernel? I
> > am running debian testing (etch) with
> >
> > $uname -a
> > Linux kusumanchi 2.6.17-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Sep 13 16:34:10 UTC 2006 i686
> > GNU/Linux
>
> $ cat /proc/version

thanks

raju


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc version used to compile the kernel

[Pollywog]

On Sunday 29 October 2006 02:01, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:

> > I believe the errors are due to incorrect gcc versions used to compile
> > the module and the kernel. I am using
>
> Hmm, you have to be root to insmod the drivers.
>

Shouldn't one use modprobe with current versions of Linux?
Of course, that would not change the fact that one has to be root.

I had problems recently when I upgraded to the 2.6.17 kernel.
I was unable to compile the fuse and nvidia modules, so I downgraded gcc and 
g++ to 4.0 (from 4.1) and that did the trick.


8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc version used to compile the kernel

[Elimar Riesebieter]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 the mental interface of
Kamaraju Kusumanchi told:

> Hi all
> How can I find the gcc version that was used to compile the kernel? I am 
> running debian testing (etch) with
> 
> $uname -a
> Linux kusumanchi 2.6.17-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Sep 13 16:34:10 UTC 2006 i686 
> GNU/Linux

$ cat /proc/version

> 
> Why I need this:
> I am trying to install madwifi drivers to get the wireless working. The 
> wireless chipset is
> 
> 02:02.0 Ethernet controller: Atheros Communications, Inc. AR5211 802.11ab NIC 
> (rev 01)
> 
> After I compiled the madwifi module by
> sudo m-a update
> sudo m-a prepare
> sudo m-a a-i madwifi
> sudo depmod -a
> 
> If I do
> $modprobe ath_pci
> WARNING: Error inserting ath_hal 
> (/lib/modules/2.6.17-2-686/kernel/drivers/net/ath_hal.ko): Operation not 
> permitted
> WARNING: Error inserting ath_rate_sample 
> (/lib/modules/2.6.17-2-686/kernel/drivers/net/ath_rate_sample.ko): Operation 
> not permitted
> FATAL: Error inserting ath_pci 
> (/lib/modules/2.6.17-2-686/kernel/drivers/net/ath_pci.ko): Operation not 
> permitted
> 
> 
> I believe the errors are due to incorrect gcc versions used to compile the 
> module and the kernel. I am using

Hmm, you have to be root to insmod the drivers.

Elimar

-- 
  Do you smell something burning or ist it me?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/11/06 23:58, H.S. wrote:
> Rocky Ou wrote:
> 
[snip]
> Others have given you good replies. I would add that do not name
> your output file (the executable) as "test". A "test" command
> already exists in Linux.

But not in DOS/Windows... :\

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFBkqaS9HxQb37XmcRAnQuAKCdoPmMAcpa6CsKa+c18FIhaHO0GQCfZmu/
BOJ4Icm/G/5rxT+cqP9jP6E=
=TjT3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[CaT]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:58:49AM -0400, H.S. wrote:
> Others have given you good replies. I would add that do not name your 
> output file (the executable) as "test". A "test" command already exists 
> in Linux.

I don't believe it matters much. Only the crazy and the inept have . in
their $PATH and it's not in there by default. If he has put it in there
then well, it's a good way to learn I guess. :)

-- 
"To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the terrorists the
greatest tribute."
- High Court Judge Michael Kirby


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[H.S.]

Rocky Ou wrote:


Hey all here it is

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l c_0912.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 lover lover 103 2006-09-12 10:58 c_0912.c

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more c_0912.c
#include 

using namespace std;

int main()
{
 out<<"Hey, YOU:) I'm good"\n;
 cin.get();
}

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc c_0912.c -o test
c_0912.c:1:20: error: iostream: No such file or directory
c_0912.c:3: error: expected â=â, â,â, â;â, âasmâ or â__attribute__â
before ânamespaceâ
c_0912.c: In function âmainâ:
c_0912.c:7: error: âoutâ undeclared (first use in this function)
c_0912.c:7: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
c_0912.c:7: error: for each function it appears in.)
c_0912.c:7: error: stray â\â in program
c_0912.c:7: error: expected â;â before ânâ
c_0912.c:8: error: âcinâ undeclared (first use in this function)


It seem gcc still not doing the job because os some missing stuff.

Can any of you help me out please?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Rocky



Others have given you good replies. I would add that do not name your 
output file (the executable) as "test". A "test" command already exists 
in Linux.


->HS


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Joshua J. Kugler]

On Monday 11 September 2006 19:11, Rocky Ou wrote:
> On 9/12/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:32:09PM +0800, Rocky Ou wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply but it still not doing the work.
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
> > > gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
> > > gcc: no input files
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
> > >
> > >
> > > Can any of you help me please?
> >
> > Hi Rocky,
> >
> > just to double check:
> >
> > gcc is a C compiler
> >
> > the basic use is:
> >
> > gcc myprog.c
> >
> > where myprog.c is a C program, not an empty or non-existant file, and
> > the file name ends in .c as this extension implies that it is C source
> > code.
> >
> > would it be possible to show us the output of 'ls -l good.c'?
> >
> > would it be possible to show us the contents of the good.c file?
> >
> > cheers,
> > Kev
> > --
> >
> > |  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
> > |
> > | : :' :  The  Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
> > |
> > | `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
> > |   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
> > | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   | my NPO: cfsg.org |
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iD8DBQFFBcUnv8UcC1qRZVMRAtcjAJ4pyzQ6j8Gwn/ia+6cyG3wPqvFs3wCfY9aG
> > IkpS2DamK0Akz+Rbr3oMols=
> > =4VCD
> > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> Hey all here it is
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l c_0912.c
> -rw-r--r-- 1 lover lover 103 2006-09-12 10:58 c_0912.c
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more c_0912.c
> #include 
>
> using namespace std;
>
> int main()
> {
>   out<<"Hey, YOU:) I'm good"\n;
>   cin.get();
> }
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc c_0912.c -o test
> c_0912.c:1:20: error: iostream: No such file or directory
> c_0912.c:3: error: expected â=â, â,â, â;â, âasmâ or â__attribute__â
> before ânamespaceâ
> c_0912.c: In function âmainâ:
> c_0912.c:7: error: âoutâ undeclared (first use in this function)
> c_0912.c:7: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> c_0912.c:7: error: for each function it appears in.)
> c_0912.c:7: error: stray â\â in program
> c_0912.c:7: error: expected â;â before ânâ
> c_0912.c:8: error: âcinâ undeclared (first use in this function)
>
>
> It seem gcc still not doing the job because os some missing stuff.
>
> Can any of you help me out please?
>
> Thanks a lot in advance!
>
> Rocky

In addition to Ron's comments, that should be 'cout' not 'out.'

j

-- 
Joshua Kugler   
Lead System Admin -- Senior Programmer
http://www.eeinternet.com
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu/  ID 0xDB26D7CE
PO Box 80086 -- Fairbanks, AK 99708 -- Ph: 907-456-5581 Fax: 907-456-3111

Re: gcc-4.1

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/11/06 22:11, Rocky Ou wrote:
> On 9/12/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:32:09PM +0800, Rocky Ou wrote:
[snip]
> Hey all here it is
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l c_0912.c
> -rw-r--r-- 1 lover lover 103 2006-09-12 10:58 c_0912.c
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more c_0912.c
> #include 
> 
> using namespace std;
> 
> int main()
> {
>  out<<"Hey, YOU:) I'm good"\n;
>  cin.get();
> }
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc c_0912.c -o test
> c_0912.c:1:20: error: iostream: No such file or directory
[snip]

The c compiler is not the c++ compiler.  That would be g++.

You *really* need to google around for a tutorial or HOWTO on
software development in the Unix environment.

BTW, I think there's a couple of bugs in your code.

  $ g++ c_0912.c
  c_0912.c:7: error: stray '\' in program
  c_0912.c: In function 'int main()':
  c_0912.c:7: error: 'out' was not declared in this scope
  c_0912.c:7: error: expected `;' before 'n'

When I put the \n inside the ", this was the result:

  $ g++ c_0912.c
  c_0912.c: In function 'int main()':
  c_0912.c:7: error: 'out' was not declared in this scope



- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFBiiiS9HxQb37XmcRAvXmAJ9BQBYL0O+f2XcKVkw34XNwwOi/8gCfVjPs
/gDao1TPa/3SH5FCalIh/Lg=
=JunR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Rocky Ou]

On 9/12/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:32:09PM +0800, Rocky Ou wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Thanks for your reply but it still not doing the work.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
> gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
> gcc: no input files
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
>
> Can any of you help me please?

Hi Rocky,

just to double check:

gcc is a C compiler

the basic use is:

gcc myprog.c

where myprog.c is a C program, not an empty or non-existant file, and
the file name ends in .c as this extension implies that it is C source
code.

would it be possible to show us the output of 'ls -l good.c'?

would it be possible to show us the contents of the good.c file?

cheers,
Kev
--
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   | my NPO: cfsg.org |


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFBcUnv8UcC1qRZVMRAtcjAJ4pyzQ6j8Gwn/ia+6cyG3wPqvFs3wCfY9aG
IkpS2DamK0Akz+Rbr3oMols=
=4VCD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Hey all here it is

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l c_0912.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 lover lover 103 2006-09-12 10:58 c_0912.c

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more c_0912.c
#include 

using namespace std;

int main()
{
 out<<"Hey, YOU:) I'm good"\n;
 cin.get();
}

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc c_0912.c -o test
c_0912.c:1:20: error: iostream: No such file or directory
c_0912.c:3: error: expected â=â, â,â, â;â, âasmâ or â__attribute__â
before ânamespaceâ
c_0912.c: In function âmainâ:
c_0912.c:7: error: âoutâ undeclared (first use in this function)
c_0912.c:7: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
c_0912.c:7: error: for each function it appears in.)
c_0912.c:7: error: stray â\â in program
c_0912.c:7: error: expected â;â before ânâ
c_0912.c:8: error: âcinâ undeclared (first use in this function)


It seem gcc still not doing the job because os some missing stuff.

Can any of you help me out please?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Rocky

Re: gcc-4.1

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/11/06 21:01, Rocky Ou wrote:
> On 9/12/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:32:09PM +0800, Rocky Ou wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your reply but it still not doing the work.
>>> 
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c gcc: good.c: No such file or
>>> directory gcc: no input files [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can any of you help me please?
>> 
>> Hi Rocky,
>> 
>> just to double check:
>> 
>> gcc is a C compiler
>> 
[snip]
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Thank you very much for all of your reply and help! I really
> appreciate it.
> 
> I misunderstood the gcc I thout it would be some apps like
> xemacs. Now I have the right idea.

Actually, [x]emacs (and vim) and gcc and gdb and ctags and make can
be made into a semi-IDE.

(I wouldn't be surprised if you could plug cvs and/or svn into the
mix, also.)

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFBiJES9HxQb37XmcRAh/KAJ9ugvDmggWBbQ6naHD8qPAPCAtvBQCeOH3Y
xVP/fwy4+2tWVLiNhfGp7ho=
=ZRb/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Rocky Ou]

On 9/12/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:32:09PM +0800, Rocky Ou wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Thanks for your reply but it still not doing the work.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
> gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
> gcc: no input files
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
>
> Can any of you help me please?

Hi Rocky,

just to double check:

gcc is a C compiler

the basic use is:

gcc myprog.c

where myprog.c is a C program, not an empty or non-existant file, and
the file name ends in .c as this extension implies that it is C source
code.

would it be possible to show us the output of 'ls -l good.c'?

would it be possible to show us the contents of the good.c file?

cheers,
Kev
--
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   | my NPO: cfsg.org |


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFBcUnv8UcC1qRZVMRAtcjAJ4pyzQ6j8Gwn/ia+6cyG3wPqvFs3wCfY9aG
IkpS2DamK0Akz+Rbr3oMols=
=4VCD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Hey all,

Thank you very much for all of your reply and help! I really appreciate it.

I misunderstood the gcc I thout it would be some apps like xemacs. Now
I have the right idea.

You guys helped me as a newbie a lot!

Thanks again!





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Rocky Ou]

On 9/12/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:32:09PM +0800, Rocky Ou wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Thanks for your reply but it still not doing the work.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
> gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
> gcc: no input files
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
>
> Can any of you help me please?

Hi Rocky,

just to double check:

gcc is a C compiler

the basic use is:

gcc myprog.c

where myprog.c is a C program, not an empty or non-existant file, and
the file name ends in .c as this extension implies that it is C source
code.

would it be possible to show us the output of 'ls -l good.c'?

would it be possible to show us the contents of the good.c file?

cheers,
Kev
--
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   | my NPO: cfsg.org |


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFBcUnv8UcC1qRZVMRAtcjAJ4pyzQ6j8Gwn/ia+6cyG3wPqvFs3wCfY9aG
IkpS2DamK0Akz+Rbr3oMols=
=4VCD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-





Hey all,

Thank you very much for all of your reply and help! I really appreciate it.

I misunderstood the gcc I thout it would be some apps like xemacs. Now
I have the right idea.

You guys helped me as a newbie a lot!

Thanks again!
Rocky


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Kevin Mark]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:32:09PM +0800, Rocky Ou wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> Thanks for your reply but it still not doing the work.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
> gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
> gcc: no input files
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
> 
> 
> Can any of you help me please?

Hi Rocky,

just to double check:

gcc is a C compiler

the basic use is:

gcc myprog.c

where myprog.c is a C program, not an empty or non-existant file, and
the file name ends in .c as this extension implies that it is C source
code.

would it be possible to show us the output of 'ls -l good.c'?

would it be possible to show us the contents of the good.c file?

cheers,
Kev
-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   | my NPO: cfsg.org |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: gcc-4.1

[Michael Marsh]

On 9/11/06, Rocky Ou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 9/11/06, Michael Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/11/06, Rocky Ou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
> > gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
> > gcc: no input files
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
> Silly question but, is there a file called "good.c" in that directory?

No. What I want to do is use gcc to make a file or start gcc.


That's not how gcc works.  It's a compiler, not an interactive
application.  You'll need to use either a text editor or an IDE to
create your source code files.  gcc only works on existing and
complete files, which it then turns into either object files or
executables.

There are plenty of books and online tutorials that should tell you
the basics of writing C code.

--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Michael Marsh]

On 9/11/06, Rocky Ou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
gcc: no input files
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$


Silly question but, is there a file called "good.c" in that directory?

--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Rocky Ou]

Hey,

Thanks for your reply but it still not doing the work.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc good.c
gcc: good.c: No such file or directory
gcc: no input files
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$


Can any of you help me please?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4.1

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/11/06 01:14, Rocky Ou wrote:
> Hey list,
> 
> I'm using Debian sid. And I have gcc-4.1 installed on it. It seem I can not
> even start the aplication. Blow are my few tries.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc filename
> gcc: filename: No such file or directory
> gcc: no input files
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc-4.1 good
> gcc-4.1: good: No such file or directory
> gcc-4.1: no input files

gcc (and most unix apps, for that matter) does *not* presume a file
extension.  So, try this:

$ gcc good.c

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFBP+CS9HxQb37XmcRAtxpAKCJE+Y7Mg6Zfi36nZedL2qhULR/1ACgg8HD
pPwt78Vxd9kxc2L/zYqT4NI=
=ZWi6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc change from 4.0 to 3.4

[Marco Calviani]

Hi Hugo,

> But you didn't tell us what the problem was.

it was related to this problem.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=303098

with cernlib libraries.

Regards,
MC

Re: gcc change from 4.0 to 3.4

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Marco Calviani wrote:

Hi Andrew,


run the following:
update-alternatives --config cc


thank you very much. This has been a good help, that resolved also my
compiling process.

Regards,
MC




But you didn't tell us what the problem was.

H


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc change from 4.0 to 3.4

[Marco Calviani]

Hi Andrew,

> run the following:
> update-alternatives --config cc

thank you very much. This has been a good help, that resolved also my
compiling process.

Regards,
MC

Re: gcc change from 4.0 to 3.4

[Andrew Cady]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 02:56:45PM +0100, Marco Calviani wrote:
> Hi list,
>i'm asking if there is some way to change the default compiler
> and related variables in a consistent way to another version. In
> particular i would like to change it, due to some incompatibilies,
> from 4.0 to 3.4. I've tried the "brutal" way changing the symlink of
> gcc to gcc-4.0 to gcc-3.4, but it was not so succesful.

run the following:
update-alternatives --config cc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc change from 4.0 to 3.4

[kamaraju kusumanchi]

Marco Calviani wrote:


Hi list,
  i'm asking if there is some way to change the default compiler and
related variables in a consistent way to another version. In
particular i would like to change it, due to some incompatibilies,
from 4.0 to 3.4. I've tried the "brutal" way changing the symlink of
gcc to gcc-4.0 to gcc-3.4, but it was not so succesful.

Thanks in advance,
MC
 

It would be very interesting to see why you want to do this? What is the 
incompatibility you are facing? May be there is a way to solve that 
incompatibility without downgrading gcc.


raju

--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc 4.0.3 and kernel 2.6.8

[Glenn Meehan]

Hi,

I downgraded gcc to stable.
gcc version 3.3.6 
It works ok now.

Thanks


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc 4.0.3 and kernel 2.6.8

[Andreas Janssen]

Hello

Glenn Meehan (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:

> It seems there is a bug with the kernel 2.6.8 that the new verison of
> gcc (4.0.3) has picked up. So I am now unable to make menuconfig:
> 
> make menuconfig
>   HOSTCC  scripts/kconfig/mconf.o
> scripts/kconfig/mconf.c:91: error: static declaration of
> 'current_menu' follows non-static declaration
> scripts/kconfig/lkc.h:63: error: previous declaration of
> 'current_menu' was here
> make[1]: *** [scripts/kconfig/mconf.o] Error 1
> make: *** [menuconfig] Error 2
> 
> If you google for this problem is seems many people are having the
> same problem.
> 
> What is the best work-around to this problem. Should I upgrade my
> kernel to a newer version? If so which is the best version to upgrade
> to? I would like to stick to a kernel from the debian repository.

You should first tell us which Debian version you use. If you use stable
(which includes 2.6.8), use the default compiler (install the gcc
package). If you use testing or unstable, I recommend you either
explicitly use the older version of gcc (still available) or upgrade to
a newer kernel (testing/unstable has 2.6.15 right now). The 2.6.8
kernel also has some compatibility problems with newer userspace
programs like udev from testing/unstable.

best regards
Andreas Janssen

-- 
Andreas Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674 ICQ #17079270
Registered Linux User #267976
http://www.andreas-janssen.de/debian-tipps-sarge.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc internal error

[David E. Fox]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:40:50 -0500
Marty Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> UNCLELEO:~# memtest86
> bash: memtest86: command not found
> UNCLELEO:~# find / -name memtest86
> UNCLELEO:~#

It's probably not included on the mini-iso. If you have a repository
setup, you could easily just aptitude install it. But it's far from a
hosed install.

> Marty


-- 

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc internal error

[Stephen Cormier]

On Saturday 10 December 2005 16:40, Marty Landman wrote:
> UNCLELEO:~# memtest86
> bash: memtest86: command not found
> UNCLELEO:~# find / -name memtest86
> UNCLELEO:~#
>
> Did above as root. Or could this indicate a hosed install?

You download from the web and burn the memtest86 iso image to CD then 
boot with it and let it run its tests.

Stephen
-- 
Debian the choice of a GNU generation

GPG Public Key: http://users.eastlink.ca/~stephencormier/publickey.asc


pgpsA8MGR8EAo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: gcc internal error

[Marty Landman]

At 03:08 PM 12/10/2005, David E. Fox wrote:


Is the error repeatable - same source file, same error?


Yes, I tried a few times.


does it happen with other compiles?


Don't know yet, wanted to do Samba first.

I'd first try memtest86 - run it through and see if there are any memory 
errors found.


Heh, did I mention this was installed using the mini-iso?

UNCLELEO:~# memtest86
bash: memtest86: command not found
UNCLELEO:~# find / -name memtest86
UNCLELEO:~#

Did above as root. Or could this indicate a hosed install? I have been 
noticing problems with the cdrom for that box. I'm on a LAN so could 
reinstall maybe.


Marty


Marty Landman, Face 2 Interface Inc. 845-679-9387
Webmaster's Bulletin Board: http://bbs.face2interface.com/
Web Installed Formmail: http://face2interface.com/formINSTal  



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc internal error

[David E. Fox]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:53:23 -0500
Marty Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've recently installed Woody on an old PC - 166Mhz w/ 2.5 GB hd. Am trying 
> to get Samba installed from the source; after doing ./configure, apparently 

Woody is a bit old - you might do well to install (sarge) stable at this
point.

> gcc: Internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11
> make: *** [rpc_parse/parse_rpc.po] Error 1

Is the error repeatable - same source file, same error? Either that, or
does it happen with other compiles? Either way, you could be
experiencing memory issues or other hardware problems. gcc 'internal
compiler error' is an indicator (at times) of RAM issues.

I'd first try memtest86 - run it through and see if there are any
memory errors found.

-- 

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4 : am I the only one having problems?

[Mike Chandler]

On Thursday 10 November 2005 07:49 pm, Jules Dubois wrote:
> On Thursday 10 November 2005 19:40, Mike Chandler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > Since my testing system updated to gcc-4, I can no longer build a kernel
> > (the
> > debian way). Doing "make oldconfig" or  "make xconfig" gives errors
> > almost immediately and won't build.
>
> What version of gcc do you have?  (gcc --version)
>
> Here's one way.  Find these lines in the top-level Makefile:
>
>   HOSTCC  = gcc
>   HOSTCXX = g++
>
> Change them to match your compiler version.  For example,
>
>   HOSTCC  = gcc-3.3
>   HOSTCXX = g++-3.3
>
> I think 'update-alternatives' can be used to change the gcc link to
> something other than gcc-4.0.  As it's been a very long day at the IDE, the
> details escape me and I don't seem to have any other version installed at
> the moment.
>
> > Another problem when it becomes necessary to re-install the NVIDIA
> > driver. Won't build.
>
> Sorry, I don't know anything about closed-source drivers.
>
> > Just curious if I need to do something other than roll back to gcc-3.3 to
> > build a new kernel.
>
> The Debian 2.6.14 source configures and compiles cleanly with gcc 4.0.
Thanks for the reply. I guess gcc-4.0 is the one that doesn't work for me. 
Where is this kernel-2.6.14? I guess it's not in the testing repository. 
I currently run a home-built 2.6.8, but to compile it I had to revert to 
gcc-3.3.
As far as the NVIDIA driver, it won't compile with gcc-4.0 either. 
I'm starting to think it IS just me!
:)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4 : am I the only one having problems?

[Jules Dubois]

On Thursday 10 November 2005 19:40, Mike Chandler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:

> Since my testing system updated to gcc-4, I can no longer build a kernel
> (the
> debian way). Doing "make oldconfig" or  "make xconfig" gives errors almost
> immediately and won't build.

What version of gcc do you have?  (gcc --version)

Here's one way.  Find these lines in the top-level Makefile:

  HOSTCC  = gcc
  HOSTCXX = g++

Change them to match your compiler version.  For example,

  HOSTCC  = gcc-3.3
  HOSTCXX = g++-3.3

I think 'update-alternatives' can be used to change the gcc link to
something other than gcc-4.0.  As it's been a very long day at the IDE, the
details escape me and I don't seem to have any other version installed at
the moment.

> Another problem when it becomes necessary to re-install the NVIDIA driver.
> Won't build.

Sorry, I don't know anything about closed-source drivers.

> Just curious if I need to do something other than roll back to gcc-3.3 to
> build a new kernel.

The Debian 2.6.14 source configures and compiles cleanly with gcc 4.0.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-4 : am I the only one having problems?

[pascal]

I'm also using gcc4 and can't build the hpt374 driver.
Oldconfig is working. How about menuconfig?

Mike Chandler schreef:

>Folks, hello and thanks for the help you've generously offered thus far.
>Since my testing system updated to gcc-4, I can no longer build a kernel (the 
>debian way). Doing "make oldconfig" or  "make xconfig" gives errors almost 
>immediately and won't build. 
>Another problem when it becomes necessary to re-install the NVIDIA driver. 
>Won't build. There may be other issues as well that I am not aware of.
>Just curious if I need to do something other than roll back to gcc-3.3 to 
>build a new kernel.
>Thanks.
>  
>
>
>  
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc always does a segmentation fault

[Alex Papadopoulos]

Ok, two friends of mine tried 'gcc -v'. They have the exact same error. The 
funny thing is that one of them seems to have a functionnal gcc (he managed 
to compile shfs module, I couldn't (that's why I found out of this bug))..

Anyway, I'm sending a mail to the package maintainer...
_
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.com/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc always does a segmentation fault

[Alex Papadopoulos]

I reinstalled gcc but it didn't work. I changed myself the link to 
/usr/bin/gcc-3.3 still segfault.

But you're right :)
I linked /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.8.1 to 
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5 and it worked !
Now what I need to know is WHY does  my gcc try to access 2.8.1 and not 
3.3.5 ?!

Anyone can help ?
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc always does a segmentation fault

[Elimar Riesebieter]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 the mental interface of
Alex Papadopoulos told:

[...]
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.8.1/specs
 ^
> Segmentation fault
It seems, that you are using gcc-2.8.1. A proper dir for 3.3 must
look like /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5. Probably your gcc
command is linked as gcc-2.8? Do an apt-get install gcc, which will
link all your compilers to the 3.3 version ;-)

HTH
Elimar


-- 
  Learned men are the cisterns of knowledge, 
  not the fountainheads ;-)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re : gcc always does a segmentation fault

[Alex Papadopoulos]

Yes Rem, everything is working fine, except gcc... I don't get it... I'm 
using sid yes...

_
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc with Debian on amd64

[Michael Madden]

David Purton wrote:
Usually development headers and import libraries are not installed by
default. You want libc6-dev.
dc
Thanks for all the help.  libc6-dev wasn't installed.
I've used potato, woody, and sarge forever, and I
never had to install libc6-dev by hand.  I guess it
is part of the base install on the official releases?
Thanks,
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc with Debian on amd64

[Nikita V. Youshchenko]

 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -o hello hello.c
> hello.c:1:19: stdio.h: No such file or directory

If one package (namely: gcc-3.3) recommends another package (namely:
libc6-dev), you probably should install second together with the first
unless you have seriuos reasons not to do so :).

If you are installing manually with apt-get, it's your responsibility to
check recommends (and probably also suggests).
If you don't want to, use some apt- frontend that does it for you.

gcc does not depend on libc6-dev because there could be some use of gcc
without libc - such as kernel buyilds.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc with Debian on amd64

[Rogério Brito]

On Dec 23 2004, Michael Madden wrote:
> #include 
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> printf("Hello World!\n");
> return (0);

The parentheses here are superfluous. The return word in C is a command,
not a function.

> }
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -o hello hello.c
> hello.c:1:19: stdio.h: No such file or directory

You should have libc6-dev (or the equivalent in your architecture)
installed for the standard header files of the C Library.


Hope this helps, Rogério Brito.

-- 
Learn to quote e-mails decently at:
http://pub.tsn.dk/how-to-quote.php
http://learn.to/quote
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/toppost.htm


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc with Debian on amd64

[Sam Watkins]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 09:22:33PM -0600, Michael Madden wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -o hello hello.c
> hello.c:1:19: stdio.h: No such file or directory

install "build-essential", and "devscripts" if you want to be able to
build debian packages.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc with Debian on amd64

[David Purton]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 09:22:33PM -0600, Michael Madden wrote:
> I just installed the latest amd64 netboot on my Sun
> SunFire V20z, and I tried to compile a simple C program:
> 
> #include 
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> printf("Hello World!\n");
> return (0);
> }
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -o hello hello.c
> hello.c:1:19: stdio.h: No such file or directory
> 
> I have the following gcc packages installed:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -l | grep gcc
> ii  gcc3.3.5-1The GNU C compiler
> ii  gcc-3.33.3.5-5The GNU C compiler
> ii  gcc-3.3-base   3.3.5-5The GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
> ii  libgcc13.4.3-6GCC support library
> 
> Did something go wrong with the initial install or do
> I just need to install something else?
> 

Usually development headers and import libraries are not installed by
default. You want libc6-dev.


dc

-- 
David Purton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to
strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.
 2 Chronicles 16:9a


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Gcc problem on Athlon box

[Lian Liming]

Thank you very much for reply.
Your solution my solve the problem of compiling kernel.
But in my athlon box, i find i can't successfully compile any software 
form the source.

So i just think is there any common rule to solve this problem?
Thank you very much for reply.
Sarunas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lian Liming wrote:
| Hi all,
| I have a Athlon XP 1400 box. And after installing Debian, i find i
| can never successfully compile the new kernel, there are always
| "internal compile error" reported by gcc.
I believe I had the same problem. To successfully compile the Athlon
kernel for one of our workstations I had to borrow the kernel config
from one of the Debian binary kernels (-k7). When you 'apt-get install'
the kernel, it's config rests in /boot. Use that as a starting point for
your kernel config and note the settings in "Processor type and
features" section.
Sarunas Burdulis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBrgJfVVkpJ1MUn+YRAkB9AJ98AE9gTVarJh7Rr4MfPOPD0BalWgCfQQ1Q
+kWihlGB63XdpCjjkbwyxPA=
=QPJl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Gcc problem on Athlon box

[Sarunas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lian Liming wrote:
| Hi all,
| I have a Athlon XP 1400  box. And after installing Debian, i find i
| can never successfully compile the new kernel, there are always
| "internal compile error" reported by gcc.
I believe I had the same problem. To successfully compile the Athlon
kernel for one of our workstations I had to borrow the kernel config
from one of the Debian binary kernels (-k7). When you 'apt-get install'
the kernel, it's config rests in /boot. Use that as a starting point for
your kernel config and note the settings in "Processor type and
features" section.
Sarunas Burdulis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBrgJfVVkpJ1MUn+YRAkB9AJ98AE9gTVarJh7Rr4MfPOPD0BalWgCfQQ1Q
+kWihlGB63XdpCjjkbwyxPA=
=QPJl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-3.2: what happened to libgcc1, libg2c0, binutils

[David A. Cobb]

Alexander Sack wrote:
David A. Cobb wrote:
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 00:19, David A. Cobb wrote:
 

After five months of struggling ( I had connectivity very briefly 
before
an "upgrade" make my whole installation useless and sent me back to 
the
CD's ), it appears that I need to be able to build the nVidia
kernel-patch with _the_same_version_  of gcc that was used to 
compile my
kernel.  I'm using kernel-image-2.4.26, and the nVidia installer 
reports
this was built with

gcc-3.2.

You surely refer to the official nvidia driver. Why not just try to 
install the precompiled nvidia module provided in non-free. I am 
runing that driver without any problems so far. 
I hope you mean the NFORCE one - my problem is getting onto the 'net; 
graphic fanciness is way down on my list.   Last time I did that it 
didn't work, but it is worth trying again.

Another option IMHO would be simply to build your kernel with a new gcc.
Urm.  Yes, in fact I was trying that without much success.  It still 
leaves me with the question of just WHAT 'gcc' I can put up that doesn't 
have a piece missing. 

Can't someone point out what is broken that critical module(s) are 
unavailable from at least two "current" compiler package-sets?

And, OBTW, Alexander, please -- what version of the kernel are you running?
Thanks,
--
David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate
"By God's Grace, I am a Christian man; by my actions a great sinner." -- The 
Way of a Pilgrim: R.French, Tr.
Life is too short to tolerate crappy software!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-3.2: what happened to libgcc1, libg2c0, binutils

[Alexander Sack]

David A. Cobb wrote:
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 00:19, David A. Cobb wrote:
 

After five months of struggling ( I had connectivity very briefly 
before
an "upgrade" make my whole installation useless and sent me back to the
CD's ), it appears that I need to be able to build the nVidia
kernel-patch with _the_same_version_  of gcc that was used to 
compile my
kernel.  I'm using kernel-image-2.4.26, and the nVidia installer 
reports
this was built with

gcc-3.2.

You surely refer to the official nvidia driver. Why not just try to 
install the precompiled nvidia module provided in non-free. I am runing 
that driver without any problems so far. Another option IMHO would be 
simply to build your kernel with a new gcc.

--
GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gcc-3.2: what happened to libgcc1, libg2c0, binutils

[David A. Cobb]

Rui Silva wrote:
why not do apt-get install --reinstall gcc3.2
it would download all the dependecies
 

First reason: this damn nVidia box won't give me internet connectivity 
from Linux until I can apply the patches.
Second reason: if it isn't on the download site, it isn't gonna be 
downloaded anyway. 

My only connection, until I can get past this problem, is to download 
.deb files using Windoze,
boot into Debian, locate the file and do dpkg --install ... . Then I 
find out what's missing and I have to boot back to Win to locate pieces 
to fix it.  Serious PITA.  If Windows weren't such a piece of crap I 
would have about run out of patience and chucked the Linux install 
altogether. 

On Tuesday 23 November 2004 00:19, David A. Cobb wrote:
 

After five months of struggling ( I had connectivity very briefly before
an "upgrade" make my whole installation useless and sent me back to the
CD's ), it appears that I need to be able to build the nVidia
kernel-patch with _the_same_version_  of gcc that was used to compile my
kernel.  I'm using kernel-image-2.4.26, and the nVidia installer reports
this was built with
gcc-3.2.
OK, I go to install gcc-3.2.  Including the Fortran, which I probably
don't really need, I get these complaints from dpkg:
"gcc-3.2 depends on libgcc1 (>= 1:3.2.3-9)"
"gcc-3.2 depends on binutils (>= 2.13.90.0.10)"
"g77-3.2 depends on libg2c0;"
"lib.depends on libstdc++5 (>= 1:3.2.3-9)"
Argh, those are not with gcc-3.2.  In fact, when I check the download
site (tonight) I find
libgcc1_3.0.4-7_i386.deb from gcc-3.0
libgcc1_3.3.4-13_hppa.deb -- and NO i386 package from gcc-3.3
libgcc1_3.3.5-2_hppa.deb-- and NO i386 package from gcc-3.3
libgcc1_3.4.2-2_i386.deb from gcc-3.4
libgcc1_4.0-0pre0_i386.deb from gcc-4.0
libg2c0_3.3.4-13_i386.deb from gcc-3.3
libg2c0_3.3.5-2_i386.deb   from gcc-3.3
binutils_2.12.90.0.1-4_i386.deb - which I already have and is too low
binutils_2.15-4_i386.deb
It seems I am stuck dead in the water unless I can come up with a
working gcc-3.2
compiler to do the nVidia install.
The alternative looks like trying to recompile my kernel with I compiler
I can get.
I actually tried that with gcc-3.4 but got errored out immediately.
That is hardly my first choice, so I didn't pursue that further.
I have gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0.  I had gcc-3.2 but had to remove it because
I couldn't get 3.3 or 3.4 to coexist.  I don't really want to give away
space to five or six different generations of compiler.  One, maybe two,
but not this fiasco.
Where can I go to get the missing libs??  [ backports is also no help in
this ].
Anyway, why is gcc-3.2 on the download site so incomplete?
I also couldn't get 3.3 up and flying for very similar reasons - key
libs missing - but what I need is 3.2!
--
David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate
"By God's Grace, I am a Christian man; by my actions a great sinner." --
The Way of a Pilgrim: R.French, Tr. Life is too short to tolerate crappy
software!
   

 


--
David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate
"By God's Grace, I am a Christian man; by my actions a great sinner." -- The 
Way of a Pilgrim: R.French, Tr.
Life is too short to tolerate crappy software!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]