h gcc 2.95.3. I
tried to search gcc 2.95.3 in the packages archive, but found only
2.95.4, no trace of 2.95.3. Moreover, I will need 2.95.3 to upgrade from
2.95.2 to 2.95.4 (is this correct?). Can you help me or tell me where I
can find a debian package of gcc_2.95.3 (and cpp_2.95.3)?
Thank you very
"" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I realize that as of the recent release of 3.0
> stable, of course, this issue is less important, and as I was compiling
> a program from the previous testing under the previous stable, the
> reported bug was hardly critical.
>
> However, as I understan
"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, as I understand it, the bug indicated a problem with the
> compiler (an internal error), so other programs compiled with the
> compiler would fail.
That's incorrect. If the compiler encounters an internal error, it
refuses to compile. So programs that s
) id g6EFbb620519;
> Sun, 14 Jul 2002 17:37:37 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 14 Jul
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 11:57:41PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > >
> > > well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the
> > > original
> > > sources of gcc 2.95.2..
> > >
> >
> > I have no idea where you get this from. The comp
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 12:29:06AM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > It's unfortunate, that 2.95.x development got stuck somewhere.
There's a limited amount of manpower. If you want to contribute to the 2.95
branch, feel free. The release manager is
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]>
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the
> > original
> > sources of gcc 2.95.2..
> >
>
> I have no idea where you get this from. The compiler core is straight
> from GCC's 2.95.4, plus some CVS patches. Yeah, maybe part
ompiler for the kernel is gcc 2.95.3 or .4, and it
should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use gcc 3.0.x
OTOH gcc upstream claims that Debian's gcc is "flakey at best". See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2001/debian-gcc-200112/msg00159.html
It's unfortuna
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 11:11:53PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the
> original sources of gcc 2.95.2..
That part is just not true. It's a branch snapshot from after the
release of 2.95.3.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
>
> well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the original
> sources of gcc 2.95.2..
>
I have no idea where you get this from. The compiler core is straight
from GCC's 2.95.4, plus some CVS patches. Yeah, maybe parts like libg++
are still the same version as from 2.95.2,
kernel:
- Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available. gcc 2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) may
also work but is not as safe, and *gcc 2.7.2.3 is no longer supported*.
Also remember to upgrade your binutils package (for as/ld/nm and company)
if necessary. For more information, refer to ./Documentat
Peter Koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sure. maybe i did not made quite clear, that i did not expect help with
> the compilation error at all, but was asking for the current method to set
> up a debian system for kernel development tasks, so that i don't get
> a response of "use the right co
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> feasibly give you an answer because there are hundreds of ways that
> there could be a problem with the compiler in that case. Our best effort
> would simply be to point you to the list of several hundred bugs and let
> you peruse them to see if they relat
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:56:22PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > This is definitely a source bug in i810_audio.c. In 2.5.x somewhere, the
> > remap_page_range() function changed its expected arguments. Seems this
> > driver wasn't updated.
>
> yes, i
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> This is definitely a source bug in i810_audio.c. In 2.5.x somewhere, the
> remap_page_range() function changed its expected arguments. Seems this
> driver wasn't updated.
yes, i know. the whole point was this: for me as a developer, the first
check for in
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:40:01PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > How about telling us the error? We use out 2.95.4 compiler to create out
> > own images for Debian kernels. So if you want a sane answer, instead of
> > some rambling guesses, supply the
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> How about telling us the error? We use out 2.95.4 compiler to create out
> own images for Debian kernels. So if you want a sane answer, instead of
> some rambling guesses, supply the damn error.
well, as i said... there is no difference in behaviour betwe
patch 2.5.5-pre1.
>
> in the meantime, i have tested the debian packages gcc 2.95.4-9,
> gcc-3.0 3.0.3-1 and a fresh compile of gcc-2.95.3 from gcc.gnu.org,
> and the error shows up in all versions.
>
> to make it clear, this compile error is totally irrelevant to the
> question if
aused by using a different compiler version than that stated in the
toplevel README and Documentation/Changes files of the kernel source
distribution, which currently is linux 2.5.4 plus patch 2.5.5-pre1.
in the meantime, i have tested the debian packages gcc 2.95.4-9,
gcc-3.0 3.0.3-1 and a fresh compi
ompiler version.
> kernel compilations seems to require gcc 2.95.3, but the debian package
> 2.95.4-9 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?
>
You'd probably get a better response if you act
hi!
i have run into some compilation problems with the 2.5.5 development kernel
and before sending an irrelevant bug report to the kernel code maintainer
i would like to make sure i do use the right compiler version.
kernel compilations seems to require gcc 2.95.3, but the debian package
2.95.4-9
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Samuel Meder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: The Debian project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: GCC 3.0.3 / 3.1 20011215 ICE (regression to gcc-2.95.3)
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Category: c
>C
Hello:
I'm a relative newbie on repackaging software to debian packages,
though I've had tried and succeeded repackaging 2 small programs to
debian packages for my own use.
How do I repackage gcc-2.95.3-2 and gcc-3.0.1 for potato? I have
downloaded the official source from the gcc webs
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> If you do, please look at devel.linuxppc.com/users/fsirl/ for a current
> version of the patch.
Tried the new one and it still dies. I'll break it down and see what is
causing the failure. Obviously, we can rule out the rs6000-specific
patches, s
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:00:37AM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Does the current source version (-8) work ok on all architectures?
> > I remember someone of you said something about non applicable
> > patches, or an out of date patch f
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Does the current source version (-8) work ok on all architectures?
> I remember someone of you said something about non applicable
> patches, or an out of date patch from Franz Sirl.
> Recent binaries exist for the hurd, i386, mips and sparc.
The patc
Does the current source version (-8) work ok on all architectures?
I remember someone of you said something about non applicable
patches, or an out of date patch from Franz Sirl.
Recent binaries exist for the hurd, i386, mips and sparc.
this patch is already fixed in CVS:
Torsten Landschoff write
28 matches
Mail list logo
