On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:39:49 -0400
"Douglas J. Hunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Friday 07 September 2001 12:02, Roger Oberholtzer babbled:
|
| > For kde2.2beta1, there was a note that gcc3 needed to be used. Have the KDE
| > folk changed this in the kde2.2 release?
|
| are you sure you pa
On Sunday 09 September 2001 09:48, Tim Wunder babbled:
> I'm getting error output during the compile process, for example:
> "../../gcc-2.95.3/gcc/toplev.c:1179: warning: initialization from
> incompatible pointer type"
like it says... warning..
>
> All the erros that I've noticed were "incomp
Previously, Douglas J. Hunley chose to write:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 23:22, Shawn Tayler babbled:
> > How tough is the move?
>
> not very. download it, ./configure, make bootstrap, rpm -e the old version,
> make install
>
> done
I'm getting error output during the compile process, for exam
Previously, Douglas J. Hunley chose to write:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 23:22, Shawn Tayler babbled:
> > How tough is the move?
>
> not very. download it, ./configure, make bootstrap, rpm -e the old version,
> make install
>
> done
According to the readme included with gcc, you execute the co
On Friday 07 September 2001 23:22, Shawn Tayler babbled:
> How tough is the move?
not very. download it, ./configure, make bootstrap, rpm -e the old version,
make install
done
--
Douglas J. Hunley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Linux User #174778
Admin: http://hunley.homeip.net/Admin: http://
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:38:46 -0400, Douglas J. Hunley wrote:
>you really should make the move to 2.95.3... it has some fixes that will be
>necessary should you later choose to use later versions of other things
>(glibc 2.2.4 comes to mind from a discussion on LFS lists...)
How tough is the move
On Friday 07 September 2001 12:02, Roger Oberholtzer babbled:
> For kde2.2beta1, there was a note that gcc3 needed to be used. Have the KDE
> folk changed this in the kde2.2 release?
are you sure you parsed that right? the release notes and the lists say NOT
to use 3.x for 2.2 final..
--
Dougl
On Friday 07 September 2001 12:00, Tim Wunder babbled:
> On the KDE list, I asked: "Why 2.96? Current version seems to be 3.01. Why
> not that?"
I saw that..
> Meaning 2.95.3 is latest stable release
>
> In fact I don't even see any mention of 2.96.r.
2.96 is a bastard child of
On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:00:37 -0400
Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On the KDE list, I asked: "Why 2.96? Current version seems to be 3.01. Why not
| that?"
For kde2.2beta1, there was a note that gcc3 needed to be used. Have the KDE
folk changed this in the kde2.2 release?
--
=
Douglas J. Hunley wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 09:01, Tim Wunder babbled:
>
>>Hi folks,
>>It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that gcc
>>2.95, which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This
>>is claimed to be the cause of my system archit
On Friday 07 September 2001 09:01, Tim Wunder babbled:
> Hi folks,
> It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that gcc
> 2.95, which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This
> is claimed to be the cause of my system architecture being i686 despite
> che
I'd be a bit hesitant to upgrade to gcc-3.x, as i've heard it still has
some issues compiling certain types of binaries. Do you know if a
slightly higher or slightly lower 2.9x version has athlon support?
--- Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> It seems, at least from a response
Hi folks,
It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that gcc 2.95,
which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This is claimed
to be the cause of my system architecture being i686 despite checking Athlon in
the kernel make xconfig (a post on the Caldera
13 matches
Mail list logo
