>
> >
> > Jeepers creepers... ;o)
> >
> > This is one of the biggest FAQ's I think in all of Linux
> > land... People argue about how they use compiler XXX.YYY and it
> > works for them, so it should work for everyone, when Linus, and
>
> ;-)
> You do like going off half-cocked, don't you Mi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> You can compile kernel 2.2.16 with gcc 2.95.2, however it should not
> be used with older kernels due to kernel bugs revealed by gcc's better
> optimizer. The low risk aproach however is coimpile kernel with egcs:
> it has been around for far longer and in addition
>
> Jeepers creepers... ;o)
>
> This is one of the biggest FAQ's I think in all of Linux
> land... People argue about how they use compiler XXX.YYY and it
> works for them, so it should work for everyone, when Linus, and
;-)
You do like going off half-cocked, don't you Mike?
I said it works
> These bugs are around the gcc-2.95.2 and the kernel behind the 2.2.16, or the
> y
> are about even the 2.2.16 kernel?
> What I mean is that many distribution give the gcc-2.95.2, and I have an e-ma
> il
> from this mailing list that says in the RedHat Linux 7.0 there will be the
> gcc-2.95.2.
A
>
> > > >
> > > >These bugs are around the gcc-2.95.2 and the kernel behind the 2.2.16, or they
> > > >are about even the 2.2.16 kernel?
> > > >What I mean is that many distribution give the gcc-2.95.2, and I have an e-mail
> > > >from this mailing list that says in the RedHat Linux 7.0 there wil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >These bugs are around the gcc-2.95.2 and the kernel behind the 2.2.16, or they
> > >are about even the 2.2.16 kernel?
> > >What I mean is that many distribution give the gcc-2.95.2, and I have an e-mail
> > >from this mailing list that says in the RedHat Linux
> >
> >These bugs are around the gcc-2.95.2 and the kernel behind the 2.2.16, or they
> >are about even the 2.2.16 kernel?
> >What I mean is that many distribution give the gcc-2.95.2, and I have an e-mail
> >from this mailing list that says in the RedHat Linux 7.0 there will be the
> >gcc-2.95.2.
> >
> >These bugs are around the gcc-2.95.2 and the kernel behind the 2.2.16, or they
> >are about even the 2.2.16 kernel?
> >What I mean is that many distribution give the gcc-2.95.2, and I have an e-mail
> >from this mailing list that says in the RedHat Linux 7.0 there will be the
> >gcc-2.95.2.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >I've been using gcc-2.95.3-0.2517 for some time and before that 2.95-2
>> >with nothing more than a few snide remarks here to unsettle me.
>>
>> Jeepers creepers... ;o)
>>
>> This is one of the biggest FAQ's I think in all of Linux
>> land..
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Mario Torre wrote:
>Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:04:16 +0200
>From: Mario Torre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Subject: Re: gcc-2.95.2
>
>These bugs are around the gcc-2.95.2 and the kernel behi
> X-Authentication-Warning: asdf.capslock.lan: mharris owned process doing -bs
> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 06:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Unexpected-Header: The Spanish Inquisition
> Copyright: Copyright 2000 by Mike A. Harris - All
These bugs are around the gcc-2.95.2 and the kernel behind the 2.2.16, or they
are about even the 2.2.16 kernel?
What I mean is that many distribution give the gcc-2.95.2, and I have an e-mail
from this mailing list that says in the RedHat Linux 7.0 there will be the
gcc-2.95.2.
I have compiled t
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>> Personally, I suspect that it's because gcc-2.95.2 can't compile working
>> kernels without a LOT of screwing around. I've yet to make the debian
>> compiler from frozen give me a working kernel. I'm much happier with the
>> WORKING software that R
> >
> > I purchased redhat Linux 6.2 which was released around Apr-June 2000.
> > On this distribution they have egcs and no gcc. Isn't egcs
> > history now?
> >
Yes
> > On October 24, 1999 the GCC team released GCC 2.95.2. All I
> > can find on
> > Redhat pages are rpm's for gcc-2.95.1.
>
> Personally, I suspect that it's because gcc-2.95.2 can't compile working
> kernels without a LOT of screwing around. I've yet to make the debian
> compiler from frozen give me a working kernel. I'm much happier with the
> WORKING software that RedHat ships. If you're looknig for RPMs that
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Jesso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 8:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: gcc-2.95.2
>
> I purchased redhat Linux 6.2 which was released around Apr-June 2000.
> On this distribution they have egcs and
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:15:12AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Don't remember but apparently the guy had benchmarked it. About
> > crashes, since both gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.96 are crashing (and gcc 2.95
> > built fine in 6.2) I would point to glibc. If it builds for you and
> >
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:15:12AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Don't remember but apparently the guy had benchmarked it. About
> crashes, since both gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.96 are crashing (and gcc 2.95
> built fine in 6.2) I would point to glibc. If it builds for you and
> not for me then
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:32:53AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > But the gcc people tell that gcc 2.96 generates slower code than gcc
> > 2.95.2. And I have found that it can't recompile itself in pinstripe
> > (it core dumps). This could be due to glibc since when I replaced it
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:32:53AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> But the gcc people tell that gcc 2.96 generates slower code than gcc
> 2.95.2. And I have found that it can't recompile itself in pinstripe
> (it core dumps). This could be due to glibc since when I replaced it
> with gcc 2.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Edward S. Marshall" ) writes:
>
> > On 20 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Try the 7.0beta - it should be included there.
> > [...]
> > > The latest and greates is included with the pinstripe beta.
> >
> > So we should take this to assume that Red Hat intends to a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Edward S. Marshall" ) writes:
> On 20 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Try the 7.0beta - it should be included there.
> [...]
> > The latest and greates is included with the pinstripe beta.
>
> So we should take this to assume that Red Hat intends to actually ship a
> re
On 20 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Try the 7.0beta - it should be included there.
[...]
> The latest and greates is included with the pinstripe beta.
So we should take this to assume that Red Hat intends to actually ship a
release version of their operating system with a CVS release of GCC
>
> >
> > What possible difference would it make to a new Linux user whether
he
> > had the latest gcc version? A new Linux user -- particularly those
> > from the Windows world -- has quite enough to learn about bash and
> > text editors. He can certainly make do without the latest and
greatest
>
>
> What possible difference would it make to a new Linux user whether he
> had the latest gcc version? A new Linux user -- particularly those
> from the Windows world -- has quite enough to learn about bash and
> text editors. He can certainly make do without the latest and greatest
> compiler,
>
> It's not in 6.x distributions because it's not binary compatible
> with egcs-1.1.2 for C++ applications.
>
I don't do a lot of coding in C or C++, but I do do some.
I've installed gcc 2.95 on RHL 6.x and it works just fine.
___
Redhat-devel-
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Jason Jesso wrote:
>I am new, so bare with me. What led me to believe that gcc replaces
>egcs is: http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
>
>"After the April 1999 merger between GCC and EGCS, only a single version
>number is maintained."
>
>After that only gcc releases are availabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Jesso ) writes:
> Well I am a new Linux user. I am trying to compile a C++ program which
> uses . It is not in my distro with 6.2.
Try the 7.0beta - it should be included there.
> I am new, so bare with me. What led me to believe that gcc replaces
> egcs is: http://gc
> Well I am a new Linux user. I am trying to compile a C++ program
which
> uses . It is not in my distro with 6.2.
>
> I am new, so bare with me. What led me to believe that gcc replaces
> egcs is: http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
>
> "After the April 1999 merger between GCC and EGCS, only a si
Well I am a new Linux user. I am trying to compile a C++ program which
uses . It is not in my distro with 6.2.
I am new, so bare with me. What led me to believe that gcc replaces
egcs is: http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
"After the April 1999 merger between GCC and EGCS, only a single version
n
> Where are the rpm's for gcc-2.95.2? Surely it doesn't take almost a
> year to build this update. And why not provide gcc-2.95.2 with the
6.2
> distro??
>
> Yes, I can download the source and compile it myself, or better yet
> maybe even make the rpm distro myself but that is besides the point.
Jason Jesso ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> I purchased redhat Linux 6.2 which was released around Apr-June 2000.
> On this distribution they have egcs and no gcc. Isn't egcs history now?
>
> On October 24, 1999 the GCC team released GCC 2.95.2. All I can find on
> Redhat pages are rpm's for gcc-2.
> [John Summerfield]
> > Can this compile safely be used for compiling everything?
> >
> > I'm most concerned about kernels (2.2 and 2.3), but I compile quite a lot
> > of other stuff here.
>
> The official stance (last time I saw Alan write on the subject) was
> that 2.95.x tickles kernel bugs
[John Summerfield]
> > The official stance (last time I saw Alan write on the subject) was
> > that 2.95.x tickles kernel bugs that egcs 1.1.2 and gcc 2.7.2.3 don't,
> > so as of yet kernels are still best compiled with older compilers.
>
> Compile-time? or do they show at run-time?
The only thi
> [John Summerfield]
> > Can this compile safely be used for compiling everything?
> >
> > I'm most concerned about kernels (2.2 and 2.3), but I compile quite a lot
> > of other stuff here.
>
> The official stance (last time I saw Alan write on the subject) was
> that 2.95.x tickles kernel bugs
[John Summerfield]
> Can this compile safely be used for compiling everything?
>
> I'm most concerned about kernels (2.2 and 2.3), but I compile quite a lot
> of other stuff here.
The official stance (last time I saw Alan write on the subject) was
that 2.95.x tickles kernel bugs that egcs 1.1.2
36 matches
Mail list logo
