I think we should reconsider not backporting the patches for bison 1.50
to the 3.2 branch.
OK; let's reconsider. Please point me at the patches.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CodeSourcery, LLChttp://www.codesourcery.com
Mark Mitchell writes:
I think we should reconsider not backporting the patches for bison 1.50
to the 3.2 branch.
OK; let's reconsider. Please point me at the patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg00787.html
--On Monday, October 21, 2002 10:18:06 AM +0200 Matthias Klose
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Mitchell writes:
I think we should reconsider not backporting the patches for bison 1.50
to the 3.2 branch.
OK; let's reconsider. Please point me at the patches.
This is a quote from the Debian package changelog for gcc 3.2:
* FTBS: With the switch to bison-1.50 (and 1.75), gcc-3.2 fails to build from
source on Debian unstable systems. This is fixed in gcc HEAD, but not on
the current release branch.
HELP NEEDED:
- check what is missing
Zack Weinberg writes:
This is a quote from the Debian package changelog for gcc 3.2:
* FTBS: With the switch to bison-1.50 (and 1.75), gcc-3.2 fails to build
from
source on Debian unstable systems. This is fixed in gcc HEAD, but not on
the current release branch.
HELP
5 matches
Mail list logo