Hi.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 05:57:59PM +, Bas Ali wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Just to need help for what concerning to build or/and install an older GCC on
> a new Debian Distro (e.g 8.8 or 9.3)
> The goal is to be able to compile and build binaries on the New Debian with
> an older GCC to kee
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 05:57:59PM +, Bas Ali wrote:
> Just to need help for what concerning to build or/and install an older GCC on
> a new Debian Distro (e.g 8.8 or 9.3)
> The goal is to be able to compile and build binaries on the New Debian with
> an older GCC to keep backcompatibility of
Hi,
Just to need help for what concerning to build or/and install an older GCC on a
new Debian Distro (e.g 8.8 or 9.3)
The goal is to be able to compile and build binaries on the New Debian with an
older GCC to keep backcompatibility of binaries program previously built on
Debian 7 (32bits Whee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That may indeed be it. Is there any known way short of looking a the
asm dump of a binary for telling what CPU instructions are used? When
asked I was directed to readelf and file and they work great for
SPARC based development,
I wouldn't bet on that either:-)
Seems t
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:32:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That may indeed be it. Is there any known way short of looking a the
> asm dump of a binary for telling what CPU instructions are used? When
> asked I was directed to readelf and file and they work great for
> SPARC based devel
n it refuses to do so and both ?file? amd ?readelf?
> > tell me it always compiles for a bare i386 despite my explicit
> > commands otherwise.
> >
> > Two questions:
> > Why the [explitive] does this [explitive] thing not compile the end
> > result into a i686 only bina
herwise.
>
> Two questions:
> Why the [explitive] does this [explitive] thing not compile the end
> result into a i686 only binary as I asked it to?
> How the [explitive] do I fix it?
>
> I have read the gcc/g++ manual pages. I have googled. I have spent
> the past hour dedi
the end
result into a i686 only binary as I asked it to?
How the [explitive] do I fix it?
I have read the gcc/g++ manual pages. I have googled. I have spent
the past hour dedicating myself to this problem, and nothing seems to
work.
This is [b]really[/b] getting to me. Please help.
I&#
only binary as I asked it to?
How the [explitive] do I fix it?
I have read the gcc/g++ manual pages. I have googled. I have spent
the past hour dedicating myself to this problem, and nothing seems to
work.
This is [b]really[/b] getting to me. Please help.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:46:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
| On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:19:40AM -0500, dman wrote:
| > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:45:42AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
| > | Many makefiles will also be happy with you setting CC=gcc-3.0 and
| > | CXX=gcc-3.0 in the environment.
| >
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:19:40AM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:45:42AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> | Many makefiles will also be happy with you setting CC=gcc-3.0 and
> | CXX=gcc-3.0 in the environment.
>
> How does one create such a Makefile? The makefile for a particular
>
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:45:42AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
| Many makefiles will also be happy with you setting CC=gcc-3.0 and
| CXX=gcc-3.0 in the environment.
How does one create such a Makefile? The makefile for a particular
piece of software I compiled didn't take the values I stuck in t
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:11:47PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:51:35PM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> > Now, my Testing system has both 2.95.4 and 3.0 installed. Is there a
> > straightforward way to make this one program compile with 3.0, using make?
> > Edit the makefile?
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:51:35PM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> I'm not a C programmer, so I need some advice. I am trying to compile a
> package (Cinelerra) which requires GCC 3.x. However, I get the impression
> from reading this list that I don't want to simply make that version the
> default on
I'm not a C programmer, so I need some advice. I am trying to compile a
package (Cinelerra) which requires GCC 3.x. However, I get the impression
from reading this list that I don't want to simply make that version the
default on my system, because the bugs aren't worked out.
Now, my Testing sys
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:59:31PM -0300, Jan Pfeifer wrote:
> gcc & g++ are the programs I use most, and often I'm waiting for them
> to compile a big project I'm currently working on.
> is it worth to recompile them using more "agressive" optimizations
&g
hi,
gcc & g++ are the programs I use most, and often I'm waiting for them
to compile a big project I'm currently working on.
is it worth to recompile them using more "agressive" optimizations
options (-O3, -funroll-loops, and -march=pentiumpro) ?
anyway, I tried it,
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 04:49:28AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> ...
> The general approach is to build it twice, normally reconfiguring in
> between. You could also simply run the 486 code on both 486 and Pentium
> II - unless you're noticing enough a speed increase from optimization to
> care about
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 08:29:50PM +0200, Jean-Yves BARBIER wrote:
> I have to compile and cross-compile several sources on a
> PII machine, for both its own and a 486.
> I'd like to know how to specify that to 'make'.
> I had a look at both 'man gcc' & 'man g++', but these are
> huge, and I'm no
Hi all,
I have to compile and cross-compile several sources on a
PII machine, for both its own and a 486.
I'd like to know how to specify that to 'make'.
I had a look at both 'man gcc' & 'man g++', but these are
huge, and I'm not a though programmer :)
Also, I remarked that some software, compil
Michael --
Thanks for your reply. I had not tried that. I must admit I've
been a bit confused about the differences between gcc, g++, egcs, libc5
and libc6. The program I was trying to compile worked on Slackware 3.5
(libc5, I suspect) with gcc, and I seem to recall compiling it o
Hi,
> Since g++ is now seperate from gcc, I noticed after installing both of
> these that I have two directories under /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux.
> One is 2.7.2.3 from gcc and the other is egcs-2.90.26. Other than a few
> differences they seem to have the same files each taking almost 3M. I'm
Since g++ is now seperate from gcc, I noticed after installing both of
these that I have two directories under /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux.
One is 2.7.2.3 from gcc and the other is egcs-2.90.26. Other than a few
differences they seem to have the same files each taking almost 3M. I'm
running on a
Is there a debian package of gcc with the repository mechanism patch from
cygnus? I had a older version of gcc with the patch, 2.7.1. But I've
upgraded to debian 1.2 and this version no longer works. So I need a new
version. I would prefer a binary distribution, but source is fine too.
--jc
--
> Hi,
>
> I've installed stabled gcc/g++ recently without any problem. However,
> when I tried to compile dxpc-3.6.0, the script complains that g++
> is not able to create binary. Should I suspect any problem with
> gcc/g++ installation? If so, how would I be able to confir
Hi,
I've installed stabled gcc/g++ recently without any problem. However,
when I tried to compile dxpc-3.6.0, the script complains that g++
is not able to create binary. Should I suspect any problem with
gcc/g++ installation? If so, how would I be able to confirm this?
Are there any test pro
26 matches
Mail list logo
