This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [linux-sh:03299] Re: Weird behaviour, possible compiler bug?


Alex Bennee wrote:
That's why you ran into trouble with gcc-3.3.3.  You hacked
the .dat file to use a snapshot, but since the patches are
taken from a directory named after the gcc version, you
didn't get the patches.


Mmm, I'm sure I didn't - but I could be wrong. I was using the 0.27
crosstool to build it.

Aha. Please use the latest 0.28 snapshot (crosstool-0.28-rc33).


Does crosstool throw errors out if the patches don't apply cleanly? I
assume they need to be re-diffed every now and again.

Yes. It aborts.


Are the gcc team taking the alt-arch patches and integrating them into
the mainline faster these days?

They're not doing too bad. It's glibc that sometimes needs a nudge.


So go back to your 3.3-ish snapshot, add the missing symlink
in the crosstool/patches directory, and try again.  No need
to play with gcc-3.4 if all you wanted was to get 3.3 working.

Ahh, I went ahead because I kinda assumed 3.4 was stable. So is 3.3 the latest greatest stable gcc these days. I kinda lost track of there versioning scheme.

3.3.4 is good. 3.4.1 is also good. It depends on the architecture.


- Dan

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]