RMH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It isn't a problem to export an extra variable and make it known
> to bsd.kern.mk; the question is, do we want GCC2 to be a supported
> compiler for -CURRENT or not?
No.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:21:13AM +, RMH wrote:
> > I have to note that currently it isn't really possible to compile
> > -CURRENT by GCC 2.95.x in the way it has to be. Buildkernel is
> > ...
Building -current requires a -current compiler.
> Huh?
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:21:13AM +, RMH wrote:
> > I have to note that currently it isn't really possible to compile
> > -CURRENT by GCC 2.95.x in the way it has to be. Buildkernel is
> > broken in several places by different means, however GCC 3.2.x
> > passes them successfully, even with
Out of curiosity:
what on earth makes you think that compiling -current kernel using older
build tools has to be supported?
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:21:13 + (GMT)
RMH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello gentlemen,
>
> I have to note that currently it isn't really possible to compile
> -CURREN
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:21:13AM +, RMH wrote:
> I have to note that currently it isn't really possible to compile
> -CURRENT by GCC 2.95.x in the way it has to be. Buildkernel is
> broken in several places by different means, however GCC 3.2.x
> passes them successfully, even with no warning
