From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2763 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2004 11:58:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2710 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2004 11:58:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.uni-magdeburg.de) (141.44.1.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Jun 2004 11:58:05 -0000 Received: from sunny.urz.uni-magdeburg.de ([141.44.8.7]) by mail.uni-magdeburg.de with esmtp (EXIM Version 4.30) for id 1Bfdiz-0002pX-O5; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:58:01 +0200 Received: from connect4.urz.uni-magdeburg.de (IDENT:BJKv6/DZZcg4ndnm5ArPcyR0dgD0DRk5@connect4.URZ.Uni-Magdeburg.DE [141.44.11.5]) by sunny.urz.uni-magdeburg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5UBvbDR022386 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:57:37 +0200 Received: (from bley@localhost) by connect4.urz.uni-magdeburg.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i5UBvbk13523 for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:57:37 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:58:00 -0000 From: Claudio Bley To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: bits/fpos.h missing? Message-ID: <20040630115736.GE3347@connect4.urz.uni-magdeburg.de> Mail-Followup-To: Claudio Bley , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org References: <20040630104704.68364.qmail@web12210.mail.yahoo.com> <20040630112554.GC3347@connect4.urz.uni-magdeburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040630112554.GC3347@connect4.urz.uni-magdeburg.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Spam-Score: -4.9 (----) X-Spam-Report: ---- Start SpamAssassin results -4.9 points, 5.0 required; -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] ---- End of SpamAssassin results X-Scan-Signature: 1745170999086293a7408b139f9c79e5 X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 [ Okay, replying to myself. ] On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 01:26:00PM +0200, Claudio Bley wrote: > > -fpermissive might help a little. But you're probably better off just > installing / using GCC 3.1. Nope, this is obviously wrong as I now tried with the suggested change and giving the -fpermissive switch esnacc compiled (with a whole bunch of warning messages, though) with GCC 3.4. YMMV ;-) Regards. -- Claudio