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

[Daniel Kegel]

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