On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:43, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> I'm very sceptical about "or any later version" instructions when
>>> building the gcc prerequisites. In practice this can never be certain
>>> to work, because the upstream maintainers
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I'm very sceptical about "or any later version" instructions when
>> building the gcc prerequisites. In practice this can never be certain
>> to work, because the upstream maintainers of these tools can change
>> them in ways that break gc
> I'm very sceptical about "or any later version" instructions when
> building the gcc prerequisites. In practice this can never be certain
> to work, because the upstream maintainers of these tools can change
> them in ways that break gcc.
Indeed, on the SPARC we seem to have problems (miscompil
[ Redirect to gcc. This is a dev issue. ]
On 08/27/2010 10:39 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:17, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> However, just running download_prerequisites is, IMVHO, the only sane way
>>> to do it.
>
> That's the solution I used, and I got a good build--thanks fo
