On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 00:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Philip Blundell writes:
> > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 11:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > - arm: missing(?) arm-patches
> >
> > I sent the two patches we had in 3.0 to the gcc mailing lists. Maybe
> > there's still a chance that they might be includ
Philip Blundell writes:
> On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 11:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > - arm: missing(?) arm-patches
>
> I sent the two patches we had in 3.0 to the gcc mailing lists. Maybe
> there's still a chance that they might be included in the actual
> release. If not, it's no big deal.
ok (btw
On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 11:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - arm: missing(?) arm-patches
I sent the two patches we had in 3.0 to the gcc mailing lists. Maybe
there's still a chance that they might be included in the actual
release. If not, it's no big deal.
Yesterday I ran a build of the 3.1 package
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - m68k: the branch doesn't bootstrap. Roman wanted to look at it,
> but I got no feedback.
Sorry, I'm busy lately with other projects and it will likely not get
better in the next weeks, but I'll try to get it at least working again
asap.
bye, R
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 12:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Would the new gcc help some architectures for compiling packages?
>
>
gcc 3.1 is far better than 2.95 and 3.0 on s390. It completes the entire test
suite without any problem and is a lot better in compiling packages,
especially packages
A first shot at gcc-3.1 can be found at
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc, based on the latest gcc-3.0
packaging.
Feedback wanted on:
- sparc: do we really need this? maybe Ben wants to have a look after
yesterday ;-) It's annoying to try this without being able to
install anything.
- a
6 matches
Mail list logo
