On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:21:33PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Szilveszter Adam wrote:
> > Also, since 2.96 has not even been released yet, I assume the
> > maintainer (bruce, AFAIK) just makes sure that it builds and compiles
> > stuff OK and so by the time 5.0 will be rel
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:40:53PM -0400, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > Should any of you have some time to spend, those two PRs I mentioned above
> > are really critical.
I have issues with one of them -- IMHO FSF/GCC should not assume the
existence of crt{i,n}.o since they supply their own crt{
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> Upgrades are not painless at all on FreeBSD, because of some additional
> hacks you/we are using. See the following two PRs for examples that cost
> me quite some time each (and are still open):
>
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=20966
> http://www.FreeB
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Szilveszter Adam wrote:
> Also, since 2.96 has not even been released yet, I assume the
> maintainer (bruce, AFAIK) just makes sure that it builds and compiles
> stuff OK and so by the time 5.0 will be released and hopefully 2.96
> too, we just have to push the button and it w
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:49:30AM +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
>
> There are two directories in CURRENT's src/contrib: gcc and gcc.295 (the former is
> fresher). In src/gnu/{usr.bin|lib} appropriate Makefile.inc files set .PATH to
> .../.../gcc.295.
> There seems to be no way to switch to an
Szilveszter Adam wrote:
> > > Hmmm. It is good that the problem got resolved, but I take both 4.1 and
> > > -CURRENT use the same gcc version... (2.95.2) Or am I missing something?
> >
> > AFAIK, -CURRENT uses a snapshot of GCC 2.96 which may have some bugs.
>
> It reports itself as 2.95.2.
>
Th
