Re: GCC Binary
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 12:27 -0700, Erick Garske wrote: >> There a location where I can download the binary of GCC for the IBM i? >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html >> >> Are any of these compatible for the IBM i at V6R1M0? > > There is no support in GCC for native iSeries (AKA AS/400). > I don't know if they kept it around for V6+, but under PASE AIX binaries are supposed to function as-is. Whether that means you will need to compile on an AIX LPAR or can self-host GCC under PASE is worth testing.
Re: GCC Binary
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 12:27 -0700, Erick Garske wrote: > There a location where I can download the binary of GCC for the IBM i? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html > > Are any of these compatible for the IBM i at V6R1M0? There is no support in GCC for native iSeries (AKA AS/400). Peter
GCC Binary
There a location where I can download the binary of GCC for the IBM i? http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html Are any of these compatible for the IBM i at V6R1M0? Thanks, Erick
Re: gcc binary download
Tobias Burnus wrote: > > Otherwise, you could consider building GCC yourself, cf. > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/. (Furthermore, some gfortran developers > offer regular GCC builds, which are linked at > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries; those are all unofficial > builds, come without any warrantee/support, and due to, e.g., library > issues they may not work on your system.) > I believe the wiki builds include C and Fortran, but not C++, in view of the additional limitations in supporting a new g++ on a reasonable range of targets. Even so, there may be minimum requirements on glibc and binutils versions.
Re: gcc binary download
Ben Elliston wrote: >> I cannot find where to download gcc binary for Linux. Can you email me >> the link? It's so confusing in the http://gcc.gnu.org/ web site. > > You should install gcc from your Linux distribution. It will be far > easier. To add: There are no binaries of GCC released by the GCC project or the FSF. Thus it is best to stick to the GCC packages which come with your Linux version. If you need newer versions, you could consider updating your Linux or try to find newer builds on some build server, which some Linux distributions have. Otherwise, you could consider building GCC yourself, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/install/. (Furthermore, some gfortran developers offer regular GCC builds, which are linked at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries; those are all unofficial builds, come without any warrantee/support, and due to, e.g., library issues they may not work on your system.) Unless you need a newer version because of some new feature or because of a fixed bug, I would stay with the GCC of the Linux distribution and - if needed be - I would update the installed Linux. Tobias
Re: gcc binary download
> I cannot find where to download gcc binary for Linux. Can you email me > the link? It's so confusing in the http://gcc.gnu.org/ web site. You should install gcc from your Linux distribution. It will be far easier. Ben
gcc binary download
Hi, I cannot find where to download gcc binary for Linux. Can you email me the link? It's so confusing in the http://gcc.gnu.org/ web site. Thanks, simon
RE: gcc binary for fc1
On 26 May 2006 15:48, Dude VanWinkle wrote: > I am trying to compile the source for gcc, but do not yet have gcc. > > I am on a fc1 machine and have been googling for hours at the clients > site, trying to find out what I need and where to get it. > > can anyone help me in figuring out how to get a compiler onto a fc1 > machine with _no_compiler? Well, yes, that's easy; first you need to get a compiler onto it, and then you can build a compiler with it :) So, given that FC1 is a linux distribution, perhaps you can download a binary rpm for it, and then build your own version of the compiler with that? Or, just for kicks, you could take a different machine that already has a compiler, and build a cross-compiled gcc for the fc1 box. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today
gcc binary for fc1
I am trying to compile the source for gcc, but do not yet have gcc. I am on a fc1 machine and have been googling for hours at the clients site, trying to find out what I need and where to get it. can anyone help me in figuring out how to get a compiler onto a fc1 machine with _no_compiler? thanks in advance, -JP
Re: gcc binary
Simon Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Where can I download gcc binary code for Linux? What's > URL? This is actually the wrong mailing list for this question. Can you tell us why you wrote to this list, so that we can encourage people to write to the correct list instead? Thanks. The right mailing list would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can find some binaries on http://gcc.gnu.org. Look at the selections on the left hand side. Click on "binaries". Most Linux distributions include gcc anyhow. Whatever distro you are using probably has a way to download some version of gcc. Ian
Re: gcc binary
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:15:20PM -0700, Simon Tsai wrote: > Where can I download gcc binary code for Linux? What's > URL? You're best off using the gcc package that is designed to work with your distribution. Please ask a list that is devoted to your GNU/Linux distribution to find out how to do that.
gcc binary
Hi, Where can I download gcc binary code for Linux? What's URL? Thanks. simon __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:41:58AM -0700, Gary Funck wrote: > Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around > and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal > executables and header files. [...] Ian, thanks. Which versions qualify as "recent" above? GCC 3.4, or 4.0, or both? Since at least 3.3. I think binutils and gdb acquired this talent around Jan 2003 (see http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-01/msg00065.html, http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-01/msg00380.html) so you might need newish versions of them, too. Is there any documentation on how the new packaging mechanism works? It's not a new packaging mechanism and it doesn't require any adjustment; the entire thing should Just Work. If you happen to need to be able to do this with old tools, you can try http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/fix-embedded-paths.c Excerpt: Program to fix embedded paths in files. Useful especially for gcc < 3.0 and binutils < 2.14, which do not work if you move them after installation; running this program fixes the paths and lets the programs work again. I use this to be able to build crosstool rpms of old tools without having write access to the final install location, and it seems to work. (Actually, I use it for new tools, too, 'cause it doesn't seem to hurt, and it's nice to have all the embedded paths right just in case.) - Dan
Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?
"Gary Funck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote (in part): > > Telling the dynamic linker about a dynamic libgcc is still a problem, > > but that is a problem whereever you put the compiler. > > If I'm not interested in build a dynamically linked gcc, or building > libgcc and related libraries as dynamic libraries, can I simply assert > --disable-shared when configuring gcc, and thus ensure that the resulting > compiler binaries can be easily moved around? Pedantically, the compiler binaries can be moved around in any case. The only issue with a shared libgcc is whether the dynamic linker can find it when you run a program linked against it. It is of course possible to fix this, whereever the library winds, up by using /etc/ld.so.conf (if available) or LD_LIBRARY_PATH (or equivalent). If you use --disable-shared when configuring gcc, then it won't build a shared libgcc. But my understanding is that then you won't be able to throw and catch exceptions between shared libraries. See the discussion of the -shared-libgcc option. Ian
RE: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote (in part): > Telling the dynamic linker about a dynamic libgcc is still a problem, > but that is a problem whereever you put the compiler. If I'm not interested in build a dynamically linked gcc, or building libgcc and related libraries as dynamic libraries, can I simply assert --disable-shared when configuring gcc, and thus ensure that the resulting compiler binaries can be easily moved around?
Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:41:58AM -0700, Gary Funck wrote: > > > > > Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around > > and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal > > executables and header files. [...] > > Ian, thanks. > > Which versions qualify as "recent" above? GCC 3.4, or 4.0, or both? Since at least 3.3. > Is there any documentation on how the new packaging mechanism works? It's not a new packaging mechanism and it doesn't require any adjustment; the entire thing should Just Work. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC
RE: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?
> > Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around > and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal > executables and header files. [...] Ian, thanks. Which versions qualify as "recent" above? GCC 3.4, or 4.0, or both? Is there any documentation on how the new packaging mechanism works? If this was discussed on this list, would you happen to know approximately, when (so I can do a search of the archives)?
Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?
"Gary Funck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Given a binary distibution of GCC, for example, built to install under > /usr/local, is it possible to configure and build the compiler in such a > way that a binary packaging method such as RPM can allow a user to specify > an alternate installation point (perhaps /opt, or even the user's home > directory) and have it all work? Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal executables and header files. You need to keep the tree in the same format, but everything is found relatively. Telling the dynamic linker about a dynamic libgcc is still a problem, but that is a problem whereever you put the compiler. Ian
packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?
Given a binary distibution of GCC, for example, built to install under /usr/local, is it possible to configure and build the compiler in such a way that a binary packaging method such as RPM can allow a user to specify an alternate installation point (perhaps /opt, or even the user's home directory) and have it all work? My impression is that too many hard coded paths are wired into gcc.c when it is built to make this ability to migrate the binary possible. There are workarounds for the user such as setting various environment variables and using the -B switch, but I'm looking for a method that directly allows installation of the binary to a new place than where it was initially configured. Anyone found a way to do this? (Separately, GCC 3.4 is now built using dynamic libraries for libgcc and libunwind, and these cause some different but unique problems invoking gcc [assuming the user would prefer not to adjust their library path or doesn't have access to /etc/ld.so.conf. I think things could be made simpler by specifying various -rpath settings when the executable is linked, but these -rpath settings may have to fixed up when installing the binary to a place other than it was built, unless the entries can be made relative to the executable.])
