Re: gcc-2.95.3

ht, not based on 2.95.2 and may be used for kernel compilation, stuff and everything. -there is no debian-packaged gcc 2.95.3 for paranoid kernel development explorers and bugscouts ;-) -this is not really a problem. -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: gcc-2.95.3

s 2.95.4, plus some CVS patches. Yeah, maybe parts like libg++ > are still the same version as from 2.95.2, but that's not the compiler. i have that from http://packages.debian.org/testing/devel/gcc.html, at the Source Code line: Source Code: [dsc] [gcc_2.95.2.orig.tar.gz] [gcc_2.95.2-20.diff

Re: gcc-2.95.3

local gcc. so i use the standard gcc 2.95.3 from gcc.gnu.org, and everything is fine, all questions answered. and i don't forbid anybody to use a different version, because i am in a very generous mood today ;-) -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: gcc-2.95.3

stem for kernel development tasks, so that i don't get a response of "use the right compiler version, idiot!" when i send in some bug report to a kernel code maintainer. see the point too? ;-) -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: gcc-2.95.3

porting bugs i have to use 2.95.3 so the code maintainer gets relevant input and does not have to double-check to reproduce the error. simple. -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: gcc-2.95.3

t sourcelist, kernel config file attached, gcc version 2.95.4-9. have fun! -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> # # Automatically generated by make menuconfig: don't edit # CONFIG_X86=y CONFIG_ISA=y # CONFIG_SBUS is not set CONFIG_UID16=y # # Code maturity level options # CONFIG_

Re: gcc-2.95.3

ls of that error. -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

gcc-2.95.3

seems to be based on the 2.95.2 source code. is that right? should i switch to the raw 2.95.3 source from gcc.gnu.org? -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>