Am Dienstag, 13. August 2002, 04:53:55 Uhr MET, schrieb daniel beck:
> the ELX linux distribution has got a toll, to choose
> which compiler to set as default : gcc 2.96 or gcc3 .
> I like that . is there a possibility to do that in
> mandrake ? because I saw that both compiler a included
> (becau
the ELX linux distribution has got a toll, to choose
which compiler to set as default : gcc 2.96 or gcc3 .
I like that . is there a possibility to do that in
mandrake ? because I saw that both compiler a included
(because of the mozilla-java problem I think).
daniel
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Florent BERANGER wrote:
> It seem to have gcc 2.96 on sunet.se cooker mirror.
> Why let it in Mdk ?
compat for commercial applications
It seem to have gcc 2.96 on sunet.se cooker mirror.
Why let it in Mdk ?
Thanks
--
Pendant tout l'été, le modem ADSL Tiscali est gratuit.
Profitez en pour passer au Haut Débit !
Cliquez ici, http://register.tiscali.fr/adsl/
Offre soumise à conditions.
Salane King wrote:
> I realize some of the people in this list don't have time for beginning or
> non programers, but this is a bug report. I just asked if someone could
> explain it or determine if it is a bug or just my computer. I think it it a
> bug now.
>
> I have
> rpm -q glibc-devel
I realize some of the people in this list don't have time for beginning or
non programers, but this is a bug report. I just asked if someone could
explain it or determine if it is a bug or just my computer. I think it it a
bug now.
I have
rpm -q glibc-devel
glibc-devel-2.2.3-2mdk
and
rpm -
Thanks Chmouel!
You're the best.
--kent
On Monday 11 June 2001 06:32, you wrote:
> Kent Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I recieved a bunch of undefined reference, attach below, when I try to
> > compile this program. Can someone with rpm knowledge help me compile
> > this little program,
Salane King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can someone explain this error
>
> On Monday checking for gcc... gcc
> checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: cannot run C
> compiled programs.
> If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'.
urpmi glibc-devel
this list is not inte
Can someone explain this error
On Monday checking for gcc... gcc
checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: cannot run C
compiled programs.
If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'.
11 June 2001 02:32 am, sitting behind your screen smiling you wrote:
> Kent Nguyen <[EMAIL PR
Kent Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recieved a bunch of undefined reference, attach below, when I try to
> compile this program. Can someone with rpm knowledge help me compile this
> little program, thanks!
[...]
> [kent@localhost kent]$ gcc -o showdb -I/usr/include -I/usr/lib/qt2 -l
Hi,
I recieved a bunch of undefined reference, attach below, when I try to
compile this program. Can someone with rpm knowledge help me compile this
little program, thanks!
/*** Start /
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#
Hi,
I check tha attached bug.c on each gcc package release. It is still failing,
and also does with a recent gcc-3 snapshot. Anybody knows if gcc people is
aware of this ?
Bug: x86 low level optimizer is broken for strength-reducion. Attached bug.c
gives bad results when compiled with 'gcc -O2'
On Saturday 07 April 2001 03:54, you wrote:
> I have been hit very badly with this thing too. Just a guess: you can't
> compile gcc 2.95.x anymore with glibc 2.2 . And even if you don't upgrade
There's a patch for gcc-2.95.x which fixes the compile problems
under glibc 2.2. It's somewhere on the
I have been hit very badly with this thing too. Just a guess: you can't
compile gcc 2.95.x anymore with glibc 2.2 . And even if you don't upgrade
gcc, you can never compile c++ programs using gcc 2.95.x better stick
to 2.96 for now.
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Jan Vicherek wrote:
> cd /tmp ; ta
Or am *I* doing something wrong ? I've just used teh gcc defaults !
full outputs :
http://honza.vicherek.com/gcc-2.95.2-compile/configure.outerr
http://honza.vicherek.com/gcc-2.95.2-compile/make.outerr
http://honza.vicherek.com/gcc-2.95.2-compile/Makefile
http://honza.vicherek.com/gcc-2.95.2-co
So sprach r j am Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 07:48:42PM -0800:
> 'fix' anything. That's smart for MandrakeSoft but is it for the long
> term needs of the Linux RPM-based community?
Heck, yes it is - all that is needed is, that the binaries are re-compiled
once 3.0 is out.
Most people already rely on
--- Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > I must say that this issue that you think it nothing to care about
> > is the stability of all the programs included in the distribution.
> > They know it's unstable since they
On 6 Mar 2001, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > that the developers of gcc have said that they dont want gcc 2.96 to be
> > used in distros, and I think it's important to respect the developers
> > will.
>
> Not all the developpers have said that.
>
> Reality is that using that compiler in distr
Yes, but that's long time ago!
On 6 Mar 2001, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not all the developpers have said that.
>
> The GCC consortium asked for it :
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > that the developers of gcc have said that they dont want gcc 2.96 to be
> > used in distros, and I think it's important to respect the developers
> > will.
>
> Not all the developpers have
Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I must say that this issue that you think it nothing to care about is
> the stability of all the programs included in the distribution. They
> know it's unstable since they have choosen not to compile the kernel
> with it, but the rest of the
On 05 Mar 2001 13:59:09 -0500, Adamson, Keith wrote:
>
> You people sound like my 14 year old daughter ... stop wining
> and if you have a "real" problem then post here.
>
Ok, I said that I wasn't going to comment this anymore...
But I feel I just have to reply to a mature and thoughtfull comm
-Original Message-
From: JimBoB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] gcc-2.96
I agree! I won't using Mandrake 8.0.
JimBoB
You people sound like my 14 year old daughter ... stop wining
and if you h
So sprach Mattias Eriksson am Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:26:11AM +0100:
> cooker, I was against it. But I was then told that there would not be
> any stable release based on a CVS snapshot of gcc, LM was not going to
No, they never said that! IIRC they said that they will also include gcc
2.96 in a
Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Hedbor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The bug was fixed in the gcc CVS just a week or so ago and on the 20th
> > > I sent a patch for this to Chmouel. It doesn't seem to be applied to
IL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Cooker] gcc-2.96
> I agree! I won't using Mandrake 8.0.
>
> JimBoB
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
I know we had a long debatte about if LM should start using gcc-2.96 in
cooker, I was against it. But I was then told that there would not be
any stable release based on a CVS snapshot of gcc, LM was not going to
make the same mistake as RedHat. But that was then, what is said a few
month ago is n
Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Hedbor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The bug was fixed in the gcc CVS just a week or so ago and on the 20th
> > I sent a patch for this to Chmouel. It doesn't seem to be applied to
> > the RPM yet though, but I hope it will be.
>
> i am b
David Hedbor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The bug was fixed in the gcc CVS just a week or so ago and on the 20th
> I sent a patch for this to Chmouel. It doesn't seem to be applied to
> the RPM yet though, but I hope it will be.
i am bad i forgot about this one, gonna to make a new release...
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 03.02 Mattias Eriksson wrote:
> >
> > For you who haven't read about the use of gcc 2.96 you can read the this
> > by Linus Torvalds.
> > http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week51/0868.html
> >
>
> Well, don't tell only the b
> > For you who haven't read about the use of gcc 2.96 you can read the this
> > by Linus Torvalds.
> > http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week51/0868.html
> >
> > /Snaggen, will not be using Mandrake in the future
> I agree! I won't using Mandrake 8.0.
Ok, we all lov
All,
- Original Message -
From: J . A . Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Cooker] gcc-2.96
> And about compilers being broken, none is sane. This ten lines example
> was posted in kernel
On 03.02 Mattias Eriksson wrote:
>
> For you who haven't read about the use of gcc 2.96 you can read the this
> by Linus Torvalds.
> http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week51/0868.html
>
Well, don't tell only the begin of the story, tell also the end.
If people see the date of
I agree! I won't using Mandrake 8.0.
JimBoB
- Original Message -
From: Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 6:26 PM
Subject: [Cooker] gcc-2.96
> I know we had a long debatte about if LM should sta
On 02.24 Jason Straight wrote:
> I'm more concerned about the problems that might arise simply because the
> packages in the distro were built with it. What problems that may occur, if
> one get's into the habbit of making binary incompatible packages at every
> distro release it kind of rende
I'm more concerned about the problems that might arise simply because the
packages in the distro were built with it. What problems that may occur, if
one get's into the habbit of making binary incompatible packages at every
distro release it kind of renders the whole idea of rpm useless. There
On 02.23 Jason Straight wrote:
> I have to wonder what's going to happen here myself - I was told that gnome
> 1.4 (due in march) wouldn't be done in time to make it into 8.0. So I am
> guessing that at the very least cooker will freeze before then. If that's the
> case then gnome can't be reb
On 02.23 Paul Giordano wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
>
> While I understand that the cooker's generally considered "alpha" code, many
> of us see it as the precursor to the next release - are you planning on
> releasing Mandrake 8.0 it with gcc 2.96, clearly against the developer's
>
I have to wonder what's going to happen here myself - I was told that gnome
1.4 (due in march) wouldn't be done in time to make it into 8.0. So I am
guessing that at the very least cooker will freeze before then. If that's the
case then gnome can't be rebuilt and tested in time for release then
Heheh, here we go again.
On Friday 23 February 2001 08:01, you wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
>
> While I understand that the cooker's generally considered "alpha" code,
> many of us see it as the precursor to the next release - are you planning
> on releasing Mandrake 8.0 it with
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
While I understand that the cooker's generally
considered "alpha" code, many of us see it as the precursor to the next release
- are you planning on releasing Mandrake 8.0 it with gcc 2.96,
clearly against the developer's specific advice (as in the above URL
During the bombing raid of Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:23:07 +0200, somebody
heard allx mumble in fear:
> Netscape works fine on my machine. I have some problems with fonts
> But this is old. Everytime I have updated XFree86-4xx, xfs cannot start. "xfs
>status" reports that the process is dead.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:36:53 +0400
prosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well the move was a big risk. We have here one RedHat fan who sparked
> Hell while RH 7 was being readied. So personally it was a big surprise
> to see 2.96 on cooker...
>
> Anyway I compiled and started rebuilding every pac
Well the move was a big risk. We have here one RedHat fan who sparked
Hell while RH 7 was being readied. So personally it was a big surprise
to see 2.96 on cooker...
Anyway I compiled and started rebuilding every package I need. There are
some serious problems but the ratio fails/successes pro
"Dmitry V. Levin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Trivial patch solves the compilation problems (just need to fix ANSI C++
> violations in gtkmm code).
cool, i was doing the same patch :)
--
MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org
Paris, France
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:10:47PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> At first tries, we succedeed to rebuild these C++ based packages:
>
> . qt
> . kde2
> . xwc
> . doxygen
> . grany
> . kisocd
> . tuxkart
> . smpeg
>
>
> We failed:
>
> . gtkmm
Trivial patch solves the compilation problems
OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rather than ranting about this, has anybody actually tried gcc-2.96. We were on
At first tries, we succedeed to rebuild these C++ based packages:
. qt
. kde2
. xwc
. doxygen
. grany
. kisocd
. tuxkart
. smpeg
We failed:
. gtkmm
. ClanLib
. icewm
. nist
Acco
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:08:04PM +, OS wrote:
> Red Hat were seriously questioned about the inclusion of gcc-2.96. But without
> trying it how can you take these press reports with any kind of credulity. Suck
> it and see, if it don't work it can always be removed (I've seen that before
> wi
Hello,
Rather than ranting about this, has anybody actually tried gcc-2.96. We were on
the point of despair at work until gcc-2.96 came along. We needed to start
using some STL which 2.95 just balked at. Because of this gcc-2.96, from our
point of view, is now on a par with the M$ compiler (no fl
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Don Head wrote:
> [...]
> I have no clue how many patches they've applied
> to however many pieces of software they have in
> the distro. You think they're afraid to patch
> gcc? NO! They'll add patch after patch, and
> even move to 2.97 if needed. They will make sure
> th
Don Head wrote:
>
> > But would they release a Mandrake with a
> > unstable kernel? He said that if gcc3 is not
> > released, Mandrake will release a unstable gcc
> > for the next release. Since I dont know the
> > roadmap for gcc3 I don't know how big this risk
> > is. Does anyone know about whe
> But would they release a Mandrake with a
> unstable kernel? He said that if gcc3 is not
> released, Mandrake will release a unstable gcc
> for the next release. Since I dont know the
> roadmap for gcc3 I don't know how big this risk
> is. Does anyone know about when they plan to
> release gcc3?
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, but what happens with alsa packages for the 2.2 series of the kernel?
> Are you gonna dump them?
merging in main..
--
MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org
Paris, France --Chmouel
Mattias Eriksson wrote:
>
> In what way will it be better prepaired for gcc3?
gcc3.0 have a lot of parts redesigned and rewritten. Block reordering
optimisation and other stuff. It will be all this gcc code that will be
thoroughly tested by having it in cooker as soon as possible.
> I can accep
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:28:44AM +0200, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I thought Mandrake is not going to use gcc 2.96? Why are there gcc 2.96
> > packages in the cooker directories on the mirrors?
> > And why is alsa 2.4.0 in cooker? This used to
At 11 October, 2000 Jason Straight wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> > At 11 October, 2000 Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> > > Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Does this means that you are not going to release another stable
> > > > release of Mandrake before gcc-3.0 is rele
Francis Galiegue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > The kernel can compile with these patches :
> >
>
> [...]
>
> OK, but the kernel should not have to be patched in order to compile. What's
> more, the result is unpredictable. And having to redefine such basic functions
> makes me seriously
Francis Galiegue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > The kernel can compile with these patches :
> >
>
> [...]
>
> OK, but the kernel should not have to be patched in order to compile. What's
> more, the result is unpredictable. And having to redefine such basic functions
> makes me seriously
At 11 October, 2000 Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > OK, so what you are saying is that by introducing gcc-2.96 you are prepaired to
> > do the same thing as RedHat and release a gcc snapshot as the stable compiler
> > in a Mandrake release against the recomendations from the gcc developers.
>
>
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I cant see what cooker and in the long run Mandrake would gain from this.
> > What I can see is that alot of people that is just running some packages
> > from cooker, while still prefering to use stable core libs c
At 11 October, 2000 Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I cant see what cooker and in the long run Mandrake would gain from this. What
> > I can see is that alot of people that is just running some packages from
> > cooker, while still prefering to use sta
Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I cant see what cooker and in the long run Mandrake would gain from this. What
> I can see is that alot of people that is just running some packages from
> cooker, while still prefering to use stable core libs cant continue to use any
> cooker softwa
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Mattias Eriksson wrote:
> I cant see what cooker and in the long run Mandrake would gain from this. What
> I can see is that alot of people that is just running some packages from
> cooker, while still prefering to use stable core libs cant continue to use any
> cooker softwa
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> At 11 October, 2000 Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> > Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Does this means that you are not going to release another stable
> > > release of Mandrake before gcc-3.0 is released? Or does it mean that
> > > you are kicking the
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > > It mean we going to take a highly patched/fixed/modified version of
> > > gcc2.96 if gcc3.0 is not ready, we going to usethe save version that
> > > the leader has, period.
> >
> > OK, so what you ar
Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > It mean we going to take a highly patched/fixed/modified version of gcc2.96 if
> > gcc3.0 is not ready, we going to usethe save version that the leader
> > has, period.
> >
>
> OK, so what you are saying is that by introducing gcc-2.96 yo
At 11 October, 2000 Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Does this means that you are not going to release another stable release of
> > Mandrake before gcc-3.0 is released? Or does it mean that you are kicking the
> > gcc developers in the groin and releas
Francis Galiegue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, but the kernel should not have to be patched in order to
> compile.
Do you think the kernel-1.2 can still be compiled with gcc2.95 ? A old kernel
should be updated, that is...
> What's more, the result is unpredictable. And having to redefine
On 11 Oct 2000, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> John Cavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yep, everything except the most important part: the kernel.
>
> The kernel can compile with these patches :
>
[...]
OK, but the kernel should not have to be patched in order to compile. What's
more, the r
Hi,
I'm using cooker (updating everiday) for some months, but I'm subscribed
here only since yesterday.
I've seen that there is a gcc 2.96 in cooker. I'd like to point that the
"gcc guys" says that there won't be a 2.96 stable. Never. 2.96 is a
development-only branch. To emphatise this, afaik the
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought Mandrake is not going to use gcc 2.96? Why are there gcc 2.96
> packages in the cooker directories on the mirrors?
> And why is alsa 2.4.0 in cooker? This used to be in contrib?!
I'm going to upgrade 2.4.0 to main, but now i have to get t
John Cavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yep, everything except the most important part: the kernel.
The kernel can compile with these patches :
--- linux/arch/i386/lib/Makefile.gccMon Jul 24 16:24:16 2000
+++ linux/arch/i386/lib/MakefileMon Jul 24 16:24:26 2000
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
#
Pixel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> seems like redhat managed to build their full distro with it, so C++ is not dead
> broke. We tried once already to put gcc 2.96 but it broke too much to be kept.
> If this new gcc 2.96 (with redhat's patch) still breaks a lot of things, it's
> going to be remov
--- Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escreveu: > Hi!
>
>
> And why is alsa 2.4.0 in cooker? This used to be in
> contrib?!
>
> What's going on?
-I think is because is not quite estable the
package "alsa 2.4x" (the ALSA version isn't 2.4, the
"2.4" refer to the kernel) should be in co
Pixel wrote:
>
> Tim McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've read about 2.96 and after
> > experimenting with it I'm dead set against it.
>
> seems like redhat managed to build their full distro with it, so C++ is not dead
> broke.
Yep, everything except the most important part: the ke
Tim McKenzie wrote:
>
> I hope that next time I run that lovely little ./no_rsync.pl I won't see
> this version coming in the 7.2 beta directory. If the oppinion of
> the beta testers count for anything as far as the distribution is
> concerned it seems quite obvious that most if not all of t
Tim McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've read about 2.96 and after
> experimenting with it I'm dead set against it.
seems like redhat managed to build their full distro with it, so C++ is not dead
broke. We tried once already to put gcc 2.96 but it broke too much to be kept.
If this new g
I hope that next time I run that lovely little ./no_rsync.pl I won't see
this version coming in the 7.2 beta directory. If the oppinion of
the beta testers count for anything as far as the distribution is
concerned it seems quite obvious that most if not all of the people on
the list are again
> So, as for me, the biggest problem is "will it break a lot of things" against
> "will it fix a lot of things". A thing that would be nice would -O3 -mpentiumpro
> that works on C++ (gcc-2.95.2 has pb with this)
>
> Last thing, if perl/ruby/ocaml/emacs works, i don't give a damn what the poor
Hi!
I thought Mandrake is not going to use gcc 2.96? Why are there gcc 2.96
packages in the cooker directories on the mirrors?
And why is alsa 2.4.0 in cooker? This used to be in contrib?!
What's going on?
Alexander Skwar
--
Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath
80 matches
Mail list logo
