On the other hand one shouldn't expect any hacks to be necessary for
GCC 2.9.5/6. It might Just Work.
Bill.
On 18 August 2011 07:53, Jason wrote:
> Hi
>
> Some thoughts
>
> The gcc farm only goes back to gcc-4.1 in general
> gcc-3.1 was the first gcc to support x86_64
> Slackware 8.1 released 20
Hi
Some thoughts
The gcc farm only goes back to gcc-4.1 in general
gcc-3.1 was the first gcc to support x86_64
Slackware 8.1 released 2002 had gcc-2.95 but slackware 9.0 released 2003 had
gcc-3.2 , and slackware was(not now) generally behind the curve
gcc-2.96 was a redhat patch to 2.95 , gcc 3.
Many machines only have 2.96. The reason is because of its stability I think.
On 17 August 2011 19:38, Jason wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2011 16:08:37 jason wrote:
>> Hi I've removed the define
>> HAVE_HOST_CPU_FAMILY_x86_64
>> as it was not used anywhere , and I plan to get rid of the other
On Wednesday 17 August 2011 16:08:37 jason wrote:
> Hi I've removed the define
> HAVE_HOST_CPU_FAMILY_x86_64
> as it was not used anywhere , and I plan to get rid of the other
> define HAVE_HOST_CPU_*
>
> There is one case left here
> /build.vc10/cfg.h:# define HAVE_HOST_CPU_FAMILY_x86_64 1
>
>
Hi I've removed the define
HAVE_HOST_CPU_FAMILY_x86_64
as it was not used anywhere , and I plan to get rid of the other
define HAVE_HOST_CPU_*
There is one case left here
/build.vc10/cfg.h:# define HAVE_HOST_CPU_FAMILY_x86_64 1
I assume this can be removed as well
Jason
--
You received this
