bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball

John A. Shoemaker jashoemaker@pinksheets.com
Mon Jun 4 08:02:00 GMT 2001

Sorry, Just when I installed from that tarball, I couldn't get compiles to
work.  (What I was attempting to do was recompile AfterStep.)
I checked the tarball I dl'd and it looks ok now.
It looks like setup was just failing to install binutils and I wasn't seeing
an error message (I wasn't watching the update so it may have shown one...).

When I installed the -1 version I did it from bash.

I appreciate you taking time to respond. Cygwin is a great utility.

Thank You
John A. Shoemaker

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christopher Faylor [ mailto:cgf@redhat.com ]
>Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:31
>To: cygwin@cygwin.com
>Cc: jashoemaker@pinksheets.com
>Subject: Re: bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball
>On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:10:48AM -0400, John A. Shoemaker wrote:
>>The binutils-20010425-2 tarball contains the wrong version of ld. When you
>>try to compile with gcc, it throws an error regarding the
>>switch. I downloaded the binutils-20010425-1 tarball and it
>didn't have this
>So, your theory is that the "ld" package, released more than a
>month ago, and
>used by everyone who uses gcc is broken and you are the first
>person to notice?
>Or are you supplying some special options to gcc/ld which lead you to be
>convinced of this?

Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

More information about the Cygwin mailing list