RE: previous working build for SH3 now fails

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

----Original Message----
>From: Robert P. J. Day
>Sent: 06 September 2005 15:01

> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Dave Korn wrote:
> 
>> ----Original Message----
>>> From: Robert P. J. Day
>>> Sent: 06 September 2005 14:06
>> 
>>>   without getting into gruesome detail, i grabbed crosstool-0.38 and
>>> did a "demo-sh3.sh" build, which failed and i'm guessing it's because
>>> i'm doing this on a fully-updated FC4 box running gcc-4.0.1.
>>> 
>>>   i'm guessing it's because gcc-4 is a much less forgiving compiler
>>> when it comes to questionable programming constructs and i'm wondering
>>> how many previously working combinations aren't going to work anymore
>>> under gcc-4.  (it's well known how lots of compiles that used to work
>>> everywhere don't under gcc-4.)
>>> 
>>>   or perhaps this is something entirely different.  i can post the
>>> actual errors if someone wants to peruse them.
>> 
>>   I can't help but ask, what on earth was the point of making a post
>> _without_ the errors?
> 
> because it's actually a common error to have builds that *used* to
> work with gcc-3.x.x now fail with gcc-4.x.x for precisely the reason i
> mentioned -- gcc-4 is a much stricter compiler.  and it was entirely
> likely that someone would reply with, "yeah, that's definitely
> happening."

  You've missed the point:  even if someone did report back that they too
had had some kind of compile problem, since you didn't say what the problem
was, how would you know that they had had the same problem?

  You don't.  So if someone did reply, all it would do would leave you wide
open to drawing a false conclusion: that two things that you have no
information about must be the same.  That doesn't help you and it doesn't
help anyone.
 
> so i figured i'd just make a general post to start with and leave open
> that possibility, rather than get into horrendous detail if the
> solution was that general.

  Two lines of error messages is not 'horrendous' detail.  It is
'sufficient' detail.

> lighten up, dude.  i suggest switching to decaf.

  I suggest not attempting to deduce emotional overtones from such a
low-bandwidth medium of communication, since it leads you to
misunderstandings.  If I had been flaming you, you *would* have known it!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


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