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
Hello gentlemen,
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 warnings shown.
Namely, first problem is in bsd.k
