On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 04:06:10PM +, Pigeon wrote:
> AARGH!
>
> Just ran the test suite on the "real" gcc-2.95, ie. the precompiled
> binary from the woody .deb ...
>
> IT GIVES THE SAME NUMBER OF UNEXPECTED FAILURES!!!
>
> So it looks as though I might as well go ahead and install the i686
AARGH!
Just ran the test suite on the "real" gcc-2.95, ie. the precompiled
binary from the woody .deb ...
IT GIVES THE SAME NUMBER OF UNEXPECTED FAILURES!!!
So it looks as though I might as well go ahead and install the i686
version I've built, they seem to be equally "trustworthy"... or not...
No, still no luck... list of all the FAILs attached in case anyone can
say "AH! *That* problem..."
in hope,
Pigeon
gcc-2.95-2.95.4.ds13.testsuite.fails.bz2
Description: Binary data
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 06:22:11AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Missing dependencies perhaps? Maybe you should do as root first:
> apt-get build-dep gcc-2.95 [or whatever your version's packages
> is called? For my part I use apt-get only to download the source,
> and either dpkg-buildpackage
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:57:27 +,
Pigeon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Desiring to build gcc-2.95 optimised for my woody/k7 system, I set CFLAGS and
> CXXFLAGS to "-O2 -march=i686" (seems the closest we can get to "k7" at
> the moment) and did an apt-get --compile source gcc-2.95.
>
> Reading the output
Hi,
Desiring to build gcc-2.95 optimised for my woody/k7 system, I set CFLAGS and
CXXFLAGS to "-O2 -march=i686" (seems the closest we can get to "k7" at
the moment) and did an apt-get --compile source gcc-2.95.
Reading the output from the build, in the section where the test suite
is run, I get 1
6 matches
Mail list logo
