From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Beardsley, Jason" To: "'Igor Markov'" Cc: gcc@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: RE: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586 Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <11A17AA2B9EAD111BCEA00A0C9B4179301BA88CB@molach.origin.ea.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-08/msg00165.html IMHO, implying that the GCC group should take any kind of responsibility for RPMs uploaded to RedHat's contrib directory is utterly ridiculous. I can't imagine you seriously mean that. If the packages don't work, then complain to the people who built them. If you can't wait for RedHat to issue an official upgrade to GCC 2.95, then may I suggest building it from source? Jason Beardsley -----Original Message----- From: Igor Markov [ mailto:imarkov@cs.ucla.edu ] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 5:26 PM To: John Wehle Cc: gcc@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586 John, thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat, whatever. Please do not consider this as "making binaries for every trashy system", but rather "ensuring the utility to major customers". I don't suppose many windows applications depend on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX. gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things are very difft here. Igor -- Igor Markov office: (310) 206-0179 http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Beardsley, Jason" To: "'Igor Markov'" Cc: gcc@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: RE: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <11A17AA2B9EAD111BCEA00A0C9B4179301BA88CB@molach.origin.ea.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-08n/msg00165.html Message-ID: <19990831232000.aVLPZ_i6HKaMbJwcymd-OPnuUtY43TZnOk1JGCR6fl4@z> IMHO, implying that the GCC group should take any kind of responsibility for RPMs uploaded to RedHat's contrib directory is utterly ridiculous. I can't imagine you seriously mean that. If the packages don't work, then complain to the people who built them. If you can't wait for RedHat to issue an official upgrade to GCC 2.95, then may I suggest building it from source? Jason Beardsley -----Original Message----- From: Igor Markov [ mailto:imarkov@cs.ucla.edu ] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 5:26 PM To: John Wehle Cc: gcc@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586 John, thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat, whatever. Please do not consider this as "making binaries for every trashy system", but rather "ensuring the utility to major customers". I don't suppose many windows applications depend on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX. gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things are very difft here. Igor -- Igor Markov office: (310) 206-0179 http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov