>Ursprungligt meddelande
>Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Datum: 2008/03/28 20:46
>Till: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "LFS Support List"
>Ärende: Re: Re: problem perl section 6.23 LFS 6.3
>
>On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >---
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:26:32PM +0300, cunnilinux himself wrote:
>
> so, if you want to test new shiny gcc yourself, you can try :)
>
This is the 4.3.0 that caused all the noise on lkml recently, over
whether there was a vulnerability (signal handling, for applications
compiled with gcc-4.3.0
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:26:32 +0300
cunnilinux himself <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> since gcc-4.3.0 requires gpm & mpfr libraries
i meant gmp not gpm, that's a typo, sorry
--
sex, freeride, open source!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:11:05AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Well, like I was saying. I have never seen GCC pass its own testsuites and
>> so I'm not surprised when it doesn't. In fact, if it ever does pass all of
>> its testsuite for C and C++ then I think I'll probably faint.
>
> I ha
hello community,
i just want to report about successful build of lfs system with new
gcc-4.3.0 for those who might be interesred.
i still don't know how it all will go on with blfs stuff, but for the
moment i have basic multilib x86-64 system with gpm, alsa & midnight
commander, and everything wor
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:11:05AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> Well, like I was saying. I have never seen GCC pass its own testsuites and
> so I'm not surprised when it doesn't. In fact, if it ever does pass all of
> its testsuite for C and C++ then I think I'll probably faint.
I have, on x8
Rumor has it that Dennis Clarke may have mentioned these words:
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 09:58:51PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> So with all that being said in 2008, here I go again with this hardware :
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> >> processor : 0
> >> cpu
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 09:58:51PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> So with all that being said in 2008, here I go again with this hardware :
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
>> processor : 0
>> cpu : G2_LE
>> clock : 396.00MHz
>
> Ooh, I don't think
J. Greenlees wrote:
> nick wrote:
>
>> After finally figuring out I needed to install BISON because it wasn't
>> installed with PC Linux OS I get an error with /make install/ in CH 5.14
>> Bash-3.2.
>>
>> The following is the output:
>>
>>
>
>
>> ~snip~
>>
>>
>
>
>> make: [
nick wrote:
> After finally figuring out I needed to install BISON because it wasn't
> installed with PC Linux OS I get an error with /make install/ in CH 5.14
> Bash-3.2.
>
> The following is the output:
>
> ~snip~
>
> make: [install] Error 2 (ignored)
>
>
The last word on that line is
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 09:58:51PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> So with all that being said in 2008, here I go again with this hardware :
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor : 0
> cpu : G2_LE
> clock : 396.00MHz
Ooh, I don't think I could af
After finally figuring out I needed to install BISON because it wasn't
installed with PC Linux OS I get an error with /make install/ in CH 5.14
Bash-3.2.
The following is the output:
lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/bash-3.2$ make install
( cd ./po/ ; make DESTDIR= installdirs )
make[1]: Entering directory `
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:44 AM, J. Greenlees
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> errors with yacc, command not found
>> error 127
>>
>> so the question:
>> Bison or BYacc? which one to install and link to yacc?
>>
>
> You want bison. It installs a yacc binary.
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
