* Re: gcc 2.95.4
@ 2001-10-13 14:12 =?unknown-8bit?B?RnLpZOlyaWMgTC4gVy4=?= Meunier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: =?unknown-8bit?B?RnLpZOlyaWMgTC4gVy4=?= Meunier @ 2001-10-13 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: schaecsn; +Cc: gcc
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]
schaecsn wrote:
> where can I get .4? Isn't that an "offical" release?
If you moved to 3.0.X and want 2.95.4 CVS to compile the
kernel (I compiled 2.4.10 with egcs 1.1.2) and GNU C Library,
among others, then you can download gcc-core-2.95.3.tar.bz2
(maybe you want the g++ part. I don't) and use 'cvs rdiff -u
-r gcc-2_95_3 -r gcc-2_95-branch gcc > gcc-2.95.4.patch'.
Apply the patch and compile. Yes, there's a problem. The
patch is huge (~4Mb) because ~95% is a testsuite. Maybe you
can kill cvs after gcc/libiberty/memchr.c (the last file in
my cut down patch).
I applied another patch from Jakub Jelinek:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2001-08/msg00156.html
--
0@pervalidus.{net, {dyndns.}org} Tel: 55-21-2717-2399 (Niterói-RJ BR)
A kernel a days keeps your uptime away.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 2.95.4
2001-10-13 1:27 schaecsn
@ 2001-10-13 10:43 ` Zack Weinberg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2001-10-13 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: schaecsn; +Cc: gcc
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 01:22:01AM -0700, schaecsn wrote:
> Hi
>
> The linux-2.4.12 Changes file mentions this "The recommended compiler
> for the kernel is gcc 2.95.3 or .4".
>
> Actually, the last 2.95 version on ftp.gnu.org is .3 and not .4.
>
> where can I get .4? Isn't that an "offical" release?
The official release of 2.95.4 has not yet occurred. However, it is
fairly common for system integrators to ship pre-release versions of
2.95.4 taken from our CVS tree. These identify themselves like this:
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs
gcc version 2.95.4 20011006 (Debian prerelease)
This practice is safe, since we are conservative about changes applied
to the 2.95.x CVS branch, and the integrators presumably do their own
testing.
The advice you quote is meant to reassure users that it is okay to use
these pre-release versions to compile the Linux kernel.
zw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* gcc 2.95.4
@ 2001-10-13 1:27 schaecsn
2001-10-13 10:43 ` Zack Weinberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: schaecsn @ 2001-10-13 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]
Hi
The linux-2.4.12 Changes file mentions this "The recommended compiler
for the kernel is gcc 2.95.3 or .4".
Actually, the last 2.95 version on ftp.gnu.org is .3 and not .4.
where can I get .4? Isn't that an "offical" release?
- Stefan
--
___ ___ __ | Name: Stefan Schäckeler
/ / / /____ (__)__ ___ | E-mail: schaecsn@gmx.de
/ /_/ / _ \/ /\ \/ / | day: Solaris 2.5.1, HP-UX 10.20
\___,__/__//__/__/ /__/\__\ | night: slackware 3.0, netbsd-alpha 1.5
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-13 14:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-10-13 14:12 gcc 2.95.4 =?unknown-8bit?B?RnLpZOlyaWMgTC4gVy4=?= Meunier
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-13 1:27 schaecsn
2001-10-13 10:43 ` Zack Weinberg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).