I believed I tested a case that I had not. I was using -Wl to set the
linker switches. This won't work any more. Using the switches
directly with gcc-3.0 works properly.
gcc-3.0 -static
versus
gcc-3.0 -Wl,-static
Thanks.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 07:28:55PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> -static -lstdc++ -lm -lgcc_s -lgcc -lc -lgcc_s -lgcc
Something is screwy with your setup then. The command works for me with
no problem. Which version of the g++-3.0 package do you have installed?
Any environment variables?
--
.--===-=-==-=---=---
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:32:49PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > The error seems to be in the specs file. In mine, I have:
> > >
> > > *libgcc:
> > > %{shared-libgcc:-lgcc_s%M
> > > -lgcc}%{static-libgcc:-lgcc}%{!shared-libgcc:%{!static-libgcc:%{shared:-lgcc_s%M
> > > -lgcc}}}%{!shared-libgcc:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:17:15PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 04:53:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > This fails
> > >
> > > g++-3.0 -o bin/program o/object1.o ... -static
> > >
> > > because gcc-3.0 cannot find the libgcc_s.a file.
> > >
> > > /usr/bin/ld:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 04:53:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > This fails
> >
> > g++-3.0 -o bin/program o/object1.o ... -static
> >
> > because gcc-3.0 cannot find the libgcc_s.a file.
> >
> > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s
>
> It shouldn't be looking for libgcc_s.a, it should use libg
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:44:46PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It appears that the command line I use in gcc-2.9x for building s
> static version of a program fails with gcc-3.0. It also appears, from
> the documentation, that there is a switch to make it work anyway.
>
> This works with th
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Phil Edwards wrote:
> All true. Just as an addendum: if a user only needs support code (new,
> delete, etc) and doesn't feel like linking against the full libstdc++,
> the support code also exists in a separate library, libsupc++.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libs
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:39:21PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the
> new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, meaning that it could
> satisfy the symbol without libstdc++ (I just checked...2.95.x's libgcc has
> a
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
> Fair enough; it's just that "old" gcc never seemed to require that.
> Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour.
I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the
new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, mean
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 05:39:12PM +, Jason Williams wrote:
> Fair enough; it's just that "old" gcc never seemed to require that.
> Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour.
Yes. :-)
Some library functions are implicitly called by the compiler/linker/runtime.
Older versions of
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:19:47PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> I haven't had any problems with gcc-3.0 compiling or linking executables
> (including C++). If you're using gcc-3.0 to compile C++ sources, then
> you'll need to pass it at least -lstc++ at link time (and possibly quite
> a
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
> 'lo, sorry to bother you.
>
> gcc 2.x compiles C++ source files fine, but gcc-3.0 doesn't. (g++-3.0 seems
> to work okay). Is this a deliberate change?
>
> (trying to compile C++ with gcc-3.0 fails with undefined references to
> new and delete)
I ha
Joey Hess writes:
> If this does indeed take some time (which sure seems likely), perhaps it
> would be a good idea to move the existing gcc-3.0 packages from priority
> standard to priority extra in the meantime. As is, they are selected
> automatically by dselect, and worse, are being install
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
> Do we really need the doxygen part anyway? It's not compilable on Alpha
> unless we use gcc-3.0 anyway (and even then, it's untested...it's that bad
> C++ problem with 2.95.x that kept it from working from what I can tell).
It's not needed for the binary-arch
well. looks like it's in incoming.debian.org already. should be appearing in
the next 24 hours.
sweet
wonder if mozilla builds with it... the last time i tried it broke :)
Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:39:24 -0400 (EDT), Christopher C. Chimelis said:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> here we go ... The packages are in incoming, built for i386, hppa
> patch checked, libgcc symlink corrected.
>
> known issues:
>
> - doxygen segfaults generating the libstdc++-v3 docs (1.3.6 worked
> ok). results in an empty html_user dir.
>
> - t
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Martini de La Rosso wrote:
> is the package on the way ?
>
> (final i mean)
Nothing like giving us a bit of time to work on it, eh? :-P Just
kidding. There's one problem to solve in the Debian parts that I know of
(which will close about 8 duplicate bug reports). Othe
severity 100696 normal
retitle 100696 [m68k] official release won't work on m68k, bootstrap error
thanks
Roman Zippel writes:
> Hi,
>
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > m68k- status unknown, no build reports upstream (May, June)
>
> I will be very likely that the official release won't wo
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 04:45:58PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:45:58 -0400
> From: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-s390@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: gcc-3.0 update
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:23:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Yesterday I uploaded new gcc-3.0 packages. Close before the gcc
> release I'd like to check the status of the Debian architecutres:
> [...]
> s390 - status unknown, no build reports upstream (May, June)
I'll do some work on this i
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:23:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Yesterday I uploaded new gcc-3.0 packages. Close before the gcc
> release I'd like to check the status of the Debian architecutres:
A new snapshot for fixing the installation bugs is in incoming. Next
prerelease (or probably release
Hi,
Matthias Klose wrote:
> m68k- status unknown, no build reports upstream (May, June)
I will be very likely that the official release won't work on m68k, but
I can provide patches to get it working.
It's also important to note that it needs the very latest binutils
release (2.11.90.0.15).
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:23:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Yesterday I uploaded new gcc-3.0 packages. Close before the gcc
> release I'd like to check the status of the Debian architecutres:
>
> alpha - 010526
> arm - 010526, no java
> i386 - 010609
> hppa - 010427, no java, "old" ABI,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:23:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> hurd - should bootstrap (CVS 010610 needed?).
Okay, thanks. My last attempt wasn't succesful, but I'll try again.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
On Sun, 20 May 2001 11:02:11 +0300 (EEST), Juha Mäkinen said:
> My system is gnu/debian woody ( i.e. "testing" ). I got the gcc-3.0 during
> the latest upgrade. But when I try to test things with a hello-world type
> program, I get this
>
> gcc-3.0 test.cpp
> gcc-3.0: installation problem,
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:45:05PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build
Ben Collins writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
> > > 2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were n
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:14:50PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
> > > 2.2.3pre1 with it on sp
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
> > 2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
> > from the glibc make
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
> 2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
> from the glibc make check, and the library installed without any
> problems.
>
> I notice
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
> 2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
> from the glibc make check, and the library installed without any
> problems.
Woohoo! That's good news for my
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:56:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > Matthias Klose writes...
> > > Matt Taggart writes:
> > > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > > > to get as many packages as possib
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Matthias Klose writes...
> > Matt Taggart writes:
> > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> > > working on the hppa port will certain
Matthias Klose writes...
> Matt Taggart writes:
>
> > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this.
>
> AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I di
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Since we're using gcc-3.0 for the hppa port I've been running into some
> packages that break with the new compilers. Since hppa is a young port and
> still has some problems I'm often not sure if it's an hppa problem or a
> gcc-3.0 problem. Even if I
35 matches
Mail list logo
