2007/8/23, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Yeah. Basically, we haven't upgraded because we're trying to get 6.3
> out the door. ;-)
Yep I saw all those messages of the mailing list :-)
> The issues are that there's a large amount of testing needed for a new
> gcc version, and that gcc-4.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Richard Gill wrote:
> I saw the development book still use gcc 4.1.2, and the latest gcc is
> 4.2.1,
Yeah. Basically, we haven't upgraded because we're trying to get 6.3
out the door. ;-)
The issues are that there's a large amount of testing
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Alright, I've done some testing on this. (Greg, have you been able to
> look at anything related on your end?)
No, sorry. Got busy (damn customers :-)
> Let me just say first of all,
> that the more I think about it, the saner it seems to save bootstrapping
> GCC unti
Hi
(first post to LFS devel mainling list, tell me if it is incoherent)
I saw the development book still use gcc 4.1.2, and the latest gcc is
4.2.1, so I'm beginning an update to this version. Included a patch
file for the gcc pass2 in chapter 5 (I didn't check if platforms were
included or remov
