On 1/9/06, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:39:16PM +0200, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> > On 1/9/06, Matt Sealey wrote:
> > ...
> > > I personally agree that we should stick with 3.4.5 for now, since
> > > it is a closed branch, stable in more ways than compilability.
> > > They are not g
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 12:39, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> of hours on it I gave up and built gcc from the sources distributed in
> SUNWgccS package - it is essentially gcc-3.4.3 with Sun' fixes.
> The bug is gone and I am happy again. It is with compiler genunix
> was built yesterday.
I think that is a v
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:29:08PM +0200, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> No one said it is bad - we just need to concentrate on the main goal -
> getting
> Polaris run. All the other things are tools in reaching that goal.
> After we're done
> with the 1st goal we can think of moving to newest compiler.
On 1/9/06, Matt Sealey wrote:
...
> I personally agree that we should stick with 3.4.5 for now, since
> it is a closed branch, stable in more ways than compilability.
> They are not going to radically change the behaviour of the
> compiler under our feet as is usually the case with a new release
>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:39:16PM +0200, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Matt Sealey wrote:
> ...
> > I personally agree that we should stick with 3.4.5 for now, since
> > it is a closed branch, stable in more ways than compilability.
> > They are not going to radically change the behaviour of t
> > positively perceived quality, subjective as it is, I admit, and the
> > 3.4 branch is of this bread.
>
> Well, i am just pointing out that major linux distros are
> using gcc 4.x since over 6 month now, constantly rebuilding
> all those (tens of) thousands of packages with it, so it
> can
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:37:58PM +0100, Peter FELECAN wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:53:08PM +0100, Peter FELECAN wrote:
> >> Ken Mays writes:
> >>
> >> > Tested cross-compiler effort:
> >> > binutils-2.16.1 - good
> >> > gcc 3.3.6 - no
> >> > gcc 3.4.5 - good (
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:53:08PM +0100, Peter FELECAN wrote:
>> Ken Mays writes:
>>
>> > Tested cross-compiler effort:
>> > binutils-2.16.1 - good
>> > gcc 3.3.6 - no
>> > gcc 3.4.5 - good (optional)
>> > gcc 4.1.0 - good (recommended)
>> >
>> > I'll tend to use gcc 4.1.
On 1/8/06, Peter FELECAN wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:53:08PM +0100, Peter FELECAN wrote:
> >> Ken Mays writes:
> >>
> >> > Tested cross-compiler effort:
> >> > binutils-2.16.1 - good
> >> > gcc 3.3.6 - no
> >> > gcc 3.4.5 - good (optional)
> >> > gcc 4.1.0 - goo
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:53:08PM +0100, Peter FELECAN wrote:
> Ken Mays writes:
>
> > Tested cross-compiler effort:
> > binutils-2.16.1 - good
> > gcc 3.3.6 - no
> > gcc 3.4.5 - good (optional)
> > gcc 4.1.0 - good (recommended)
> >
> > I'll tend to use gcc 4.1.0 and work my way through CVS as
Ken Mays writes:
> Tested cross-compiler effort:
> binutils-2.16.1 - good
> gcc 3.3.6 - no
> gcc 3.4.5 - good (optional)
> gcc 4.1.0 - good (recommended)
>
> I'll tend to use gcc 4.1.0 and work my way through CVS as needed. Should be
> able to use this with other platforms as well for current NV
Tested cross-compiler effort:
binutils-2.16.1 - good
gcc 3.3.6 - no
gcc 3.4.5 - good (optional)
gcc 4.1.0 - good (recommended)
I'll tend to use gcc 4.1.0 and work my way through CVS as needed. Should be
able to use this with other platforms as well for current NV (ON) builds...
~ Ken Mays
This me
Ben wrote:
>>How do you test the binaries you've got ?
>>
>
>
> When the "cross compiler" produces native binaries, you know something went
> wrong :)
Indeed :)
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> ___
> powerpc-discuss mailing list
> powerpc
>
> How do you test the binaries you've got ?
>
When the "cross compiler" produces native binaries, you know something went
wrong :)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
14 matches
Mail list logo
