From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263298AbTDLPMz (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:12:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263311AbTDLPMz (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:12:55 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com ([204.127.198.39]:56761 "EHLO rwcrmhc53.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263298AbTDLPMy (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:12:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3E983288.9000000@kegel.com> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 08:36:40 -0700 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 X-Accept-Language: de-de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Mailing List , crossgcc@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gcc-2.95 broken on PPC? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org A high white horse souse wrote: > I wouldn't switch to gcc-3.3 for now, the gcc mailing list looks like it > has more problems and less features than the unstable bleeding edge > gcc-3.4 CVS version. I am using gcc 3.2.2 for everything. I compiled > my X, my libc, my kernel, my KDE. That is the first 3.x version that > didn't produce incorrect code for any of these. Thanks for the info. I feel a lot better about trying gcc-3.2.2 now. Does anyone know if it needs patches to produce a working kernel and glibc on sh4? gcc-3.0.4 needed a sizable patch on sh4, I seem to recall, but not on ppc. > The down side is that creating cross compilers from gcc 3.x is a lot > harder unless you already have a cross compiled glibc from gcc 2.95.x > in the proper paths. Yep. I'm not looking forward to dealing with that. Shame the gcc team keeps making building cross compilers harder. - Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045