On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:31:30AM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> -On [20020506 00:30], Kris Kennaway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 02:42:22PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> >
> >> I definately do not call libiberty kernel related.
> >> Nor do we, by default
-On [20020506 00:30], Kris Kennaway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 02:42:22PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
>
>> I definately do not call libiberty kernel related.
>> Nor do we, by default, advocate NO_WERROR. So in effect, we broke moving
>> from older versions to new
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 02:42:22PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> I definately do not call libiberty kernel related.
> Nor do we, by default, advocate NO_WERROR. So in effect, we broke moving
> from older versions to newer versions of CURRENT.
Can you track down what the actual cause of
-On [20020504 20:15], Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>It is only here that warnings are treated as errors.
>I am thinking something in the upgrade path is not 100% thought out, trying
>to see what exactly, but my focus has been way more on STABLE than CURRENT,
>so some more expo
So I decided it might be nice to upgrade my Nov 21 CURRENT to today's and
started a make buildworld on a clean /usr/src and a /usr/obj with nothing it.
After a while I get:
===> gnu/usr.bin/binutils
===> gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libiberty
cc -O -g -pipe -march=pentium -Wall -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I/sto
