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] |
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Daniel Kegel wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > this is clearly a hacky patch and, just as clearly, this is > > something that has to be fixed upstream since it's a flaw in the glibc > > snapshot itself. to support the following combination: > > > > gcc-4.1-20050201 > > glibc-20050502 > > binutils-050502 > > > > just trash the binutils version checking in glibc/configure.in (i > > told you it was hacky). > > Now, now. We can do better than that. It should be > a simple, painless regular expression change :-) > I can't apply your change, but it's good to have around, > and shows where the real fix needs to go. > > BTW when patching configure.ac scripts like that, please > also include the patch for the resulting configure script, > so people don't have to run autoconf. ok. but, obviously, this change really has to be made upstream. i *did* admit it was a hacky change, just so i could see if i could get the build to complete. rday p.s. and i *did* apply what appeared to be the obvious regex patch, but that didn't solve the problem. curious. perhaps i just don't understand the exact syntax to be used. ------ 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] |