On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Marko Kreen wrote:
> Sorry. Who said it should not be tested? How else it could get
> 'default compiler'? If the gcc-3.0 would start giving errors
> on some old code then it could be gcc bug. But this rwsem code
> is couple of days old. It is good to let it through stric
On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 01:03:35AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 09:09:00PM +, Thorsten Glaser Geuer wrote:
> > Dear Sirs,
> > I still cannot compile with gcc-3.0 from 08.04.
>
> Yes ? Who said gcc-3.0 is suitable compiler ?
>
> No doubt it some day will b
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 09:09:00PM +, Thorsten Glaser Geuer wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
> I still cannot compile with gcc-3.0 from 08.04.
Yes ? Who said gcc-3.0 is suitable compiler ?
No doubt it some day will be the default compiler, but not yet.
For that matter, what "gcc
Dear Sirs,
I still cannot compile with gcc-3.0 from 08.04.
Yesterday I tried -ac5 (same problem reported
earlier) and using egcs-2.91.66 for _only_
the peoblematic files (sys.c exec.c binfmt_elf.c
and two others which I dont remember) but the
kernel could not boot.
Now I get:
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/
4 matches
Mail list logo
