Re: gcc-3.2.1 and htdig-3.1.6

2003-10-25 Thread M.W. Chang
strange. it worked this morning. I couldn't get through the configure part yesterday night, with the libstdc++ missing error. anyway, thanks. Net Llama! wrote: > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, M.W. Chang wrote: >> I updated the gcc to 3.2.1 (following the gcc notes). When I tried to >> compiled htdig, i

Re: gcc-3.2.1 and htdig-3.1.6

2003-10-24 Thread Net Llama!
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, M.W. Chang wrote: > I updated the gcc to 3.2.1 (following the gcc notes). When I tried to > compiled htdig, it complained about missing libstdc++ libraries. How > could that be possible? I checked that the gcc source tree had a > subdirectory libstdc++. What was the exact err

gcc-3.2.1 and htdig-3.1.6

2003-10-24 Thread M.W. Chang
I updated the gcc to 3.2.1 (following the gcc notes). When I tried to compiled htdig, it complained about missing libstdc++ libraries. How could that be possible? I checked that the gcc source tree had a subdirectory libstdc++. -- .~.Might, Courage, Vision. In Linux We Trust. / v \ h

Re: gcc-3.2.1

2003-01-29 Thread m.w.chang
no go with htdig... still complaining about the libht. well... m.w.chang wrote: ok. gcc 3.2.1 built following gcc_notes. now going back to htdig-3.1.6 (which complained loudly about ostream...) -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux We Trust. news://news.hkpcug.org/ v \ http

Re: gcc-3.2.1

2003-01-29 Thread m.w.chang
ok. gcc 3.2.1 built following gcc_notes. proftpd-1.2.8cvs built ok (now using it). now going back to htdig-3.1.6 (which complained loudly about ostream...) m.w.chang wrote: > seems that libstdc++-2.92 was NOT meant for gcc-2.95.3. > even caldera used libstdc++-2.10 only. what should be th

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-04 Thread m.w.chang
, everything got recompiled and everything would work without problem. It's not that simple for linux, with so many distributions and ways of packaging. >> you meant if I install gcc-3.2.1 to my COL 3.1, recompile *JUST* the >> proftpd daemon, and it would work without problem? >

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-04 Thread kwall
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:00:22AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote: > you meant if I install gcc-3.2.1 to my COL 3.1, recompile *JUST* the > proftpd daemon, and it would work without problem? Yes, that's what I meant. Kurt -- Politics is like coaching a football team. you have to be smar

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-04 Thread m.w.chang
can you correct me? I knew you knew what I was actually talking about.. :) Net Llama! wrote: errr...what's a "2.95.3 library"?? On 12/03/02 18:05, m.w.chang wrote: yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-04 Thread m.w.chang
you meant if I install gcc-3.2.1 to my COL 3.1, recompile *JUST* the proftpd daemon, and it would work without problem? maybe my example is too easy... but I am no gcc expert. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:05:39AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote: yes, but what about all those

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-04 Thread m.w.chang
the stuffs in COL 3.1 m.w.chang wrote: can you correct me? I knew you knew what I was actually talking about.. :) errr...what's a "2.95.3 library"?? -- .~.Might, Courage, Vision. In Linux We Trust. / v \ http://www.linux-sxs.org /( _ )\ Linux 2.4.20 ^ ^7:00am up 3 days, 17:46,

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-03 Thread kwall
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:05:39AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote: > yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries > work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *not* > downward compatible. You have to go all the away... Not my experience here. Kurt -- Some don't

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-03 Thread Net Llama!
errr...what's a "2.95.3 library"?? On 12/03/02 18:05, m.w.chang wrote: yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *not* downward compatible. You have to go all the away... I compiled it on an old desktop runn

Re: gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-03 Thread m.w.chang
yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *not* downward compatible. You have to go all the away... > I compiled it on an old desktop running OpenLinux 3.1.1. Well... it works. > Compiled binaries are a bit lar

gcc 3.2.1... it works.

2002-12-03 Thread Jerry McBride
There's been a little discussion concerning gcc 3.2.1 and here's my input... I compiled it on an old desktop running OpenLinux 3.1.1. Well... it works. Compiled binaries are a bit larger than the same binary compiled with 2.95.3. It hogs more processor power and... well... Nothing

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread Jerry McBride
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:35:56 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:31:06PM -0500, Jerry McBride wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread kwall
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:00:14PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote: > On 12/02/02 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > >Last week, but, what's a week among friends, eh? ;-) > > Hey, i didn't say "just released". Duly noted; wisecrack respectfully withdrawn. > >I'm not the Llama, but I'm pleased to

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Monday 02 December 2002 03:53 pm, Net Llama! wrote: > On 12/02/02 15:31, Jerry McBride wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > >> http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512 > >> > &

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread kwall
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:31:06PM -0500, Jerry McBride wrote: > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512 > > > > gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x r

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread Net Llama!
On 12/02/02 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:31:06PM -0500, Jerry McBride wrote: On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512 > > gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the la

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread Jerry McBride
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:53:28 -0800 Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/02/02 15:31, Jerry McBride wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread Net Llama!
On 12/02/02 15:31, Jerry McBride wrote: On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512 gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x releases). How's it work, Llama? I dunno, haven'

Re: GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread Jerry McBride
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512 > > gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x releases). > Ho

GCC 3.2.1

2002-12-02 Thread Net Llama!
http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512 gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x releases). -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & Ty