gcc 2.96?

[ChengHsin Hsu]

I'm not really answering your question neither..:) But would like to let 
me know I'm doing exactly the same experiment. I tried to build 
mips-wrs-vxworks tool chain with Tornado 2.0, but failed. It turns out 
that upgrading our tornado to version 2.1.1 is a more realistic way(in 
my personal opinion) to get the advantage of latest compiler. (gcc 2.96 
comes with our T2.1.1 package)

I might even upgrade the gcc to 3.x version, but still get stuck in 
porting the BSP....

For your reference only...

Bear.


Ross A. Osborn wrote:

>I'm not really answering your question but I have a couple of related
>questions of my own.
>
>We have vxworks for both ppc and 68k processors.  Both of the cross
>compilers report the same version info:
>
>$ ccppc --version
>cygnus-2.7.2-960126 egcs-971225 tornado 2.0
>
>
>This looks to me like an antique version of egcs.  Is this true?  Are
>newer versions of gcc significantly better than this version?  My
>impression has been that a lot of the work on the compiler in the last
>several years has been to improve C++ compiling.  We have a lot of C++
>here so would trying to build our own cross compiler be worth the
>effort?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ross
>
>------
>Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
>Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
>




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