I wrote instructions on how to install and build egcs-1.1.2 on Debian potato
systems as part of instructions to compile and install A+
(http://aplusdev.org/Install/debian.html). Basically, it says to build and
install egcs in /usr/local/egcs/, then set your PATH to point at it while
building A
>
> The sysadmin really likes debian. So, I have the following questions.
>
> 1) Is there an egcs-2.91.66 binary for Debian?
>
If there is it would be in the slink era.
> 2) Are there any obvious issues with replacing gcc 2.95.4 with
> egcs-2.91.66? I suppose anothe
On Tue, 14 May 2002 17:21:01 -0700
"John Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Debian system with gcc 2.95.4. However, I need egcs-2.91.66 (egcs
> 1.1.2 release).
There is a egcs 1.1.2 source package within Debian, under the name of
egcs1.1
--
[
Hello,
I have a Debian system with gcc 2.95.4. However, I need egcs-2.91.66 (egcs
1.1.2 release).
I have downloaded egcs-2.91.66 and have attempted to compile the source.
"Make all" gives me large numbers of errors related to objects that are
part of various libraries.
I have
Steve Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 10:04 am, Tuesday, October 9 2001, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) mumbled:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:36:27 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > Has anybody packaged egcs 1.1.2 for kernel compilation?
> >
> > I did some
At 10:04 am, Tuesday, October 9 2001, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) mumbled:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:36:27 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Has anybody packaged egcs 1.1.2 for kernel compilation?
>
> I did some work on it, but abandoned it as I've encountered no problems
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:36:27 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Has anybody packaged egcs 1.1.2 for kernel compilation?
I did some work on it, but abandoned it as I've encountered no problems with
2.95.x in my configurations. There's a diff at
http://www.cistron.nl/~jhm
Has anybody packaged egcs 1.1.2 for kernel compilation? It's still
the official compiler for the Linux kernel, and there are definitely
problems when using GCC 2.95.x instead.
--
Florian Weimer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Stuttgart http://cert.uni-stuttga
egcs is part of gcc 2.95.
http://gcc.gnu.org/
http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html#timeline
> I'm trying toi compile something and it seems to require egcs. I can't
> find that package in the unstable dist. I did a search on "egcs" in
> the debian packages also. No go.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Robert
I'm trying toi compile something and it seems to require egcs. I can't
find that package in the unstable dist. I did a search on "egcs" in
the debian packages also. No go.
Thoughts?
Robert
:wq!
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:55:50PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chaps,
>
> Could someone out there please enlighten me on what the "rpath" does,
> and how to it is used? I can't seem to find anything on it in the man or
> info pages
>
> kindest regards,
>
> --ibs
See "man ld", al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Could someone out there please enlighten me on what the "rpath" does,
>and how to it is used? I can't seem to find anything on it in the man or
>info pages
You'll find information in the man page for the linker - 'man ld'.
HTH,
--
Colin Watson
Chaps,
Could someone out there please enlighten me on what the "rpath" does,
and how to it is used? I can't seem to find anything on it in the man or
info pages
kindest regards,
--ibs
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 14:10:04 +0800, Frank Horowitz wrote:
> Has anyone succeeded in getting egcs to co-exist iwth the mainstream gcc
> packages in woody? If so, how?
The easiest way would be to build egcs for installation into different
locations than the regular ones, e.g.
G'Day Folks,
A question from some newcomers to Debian (refugees from RPM database
problems under RedHat and Mandrake installations ;-)
We have some software that requires the g++ class template stuff found
in egcs (aka gcc 2.91.66). N.B. the later gcc 2.95.2 and 2.95.3
templates *BREAK
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:14:04PM +0100, staf wagemakers wrote:
| On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:29:20PM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
| > :: staf wagemakers writes:
| >
[snip]
| > I'd call our version of gcc (2.95.3) a "prerelease", but not Red
| > Hat's "2.96".
| >
| > The gcc people had to pu
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:29:20PM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
> :: staf wagemakers writes:
>
> > The latest gcc sersion 2.96 ( which is the default compiler on Red Hat 7 )
> > has
> > a few bugs and isn't able to compile the Linux kernel. This version of gcc
> > is
> > only a pre-releas
:: staf wagemakers writes:
> The latest gcc sersion 2.96 ( which is the default compiler on Red Hat 7 )
> has
> a few bugs and isn't able to compile the Linux kernel. This version of gcc is
> only a pre-release therefor I wouldn't use this version at all...
There was some flame war in linux-ke
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:49:11PM +0100, Raffaele Sandrini wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your help. I also compile all my stuff on GCC 2.95.2
> without having any troubbles at anytime. I'm just wundering what the GREAT
>
> difference between the releases could be. I mean the language for example
>
On Saturday 06 January 2001 22:19, Mike wrote:
> Raffaele Sandrini wrote:
> > Does EGCS exist today? or is it included in GCC. Many software
recomments
> > to be compiled with egcs (???).
>
> Like others have said already, gcc and egcs merged some time back.
>
> >
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:00:14PM +0100, Raffaele Sandrini wrote:
> I am really confused over the different compilers wich seems to be
> together.
>
> Does EGCS exist today? or is it included in GCC. Many software recomments
> to be compiled with egcs (???). I have GCC 2.95.2
Raffaele Sandrini wrote:
> Does EGCS exist today? or is it included in GCC. Many software recomments
> to be compiled with egcs (???).
Like others have said already, gcc and egcs merged some time back.
> I have GCC 2.95.2 installed on my machine wich seems to be the latest
> version
As I understand the history, the egcs people had a disagreement with
the gcc people so they split off and continued to develop gcc on their
own. Later, egcs was in a better state than gcc so the gcc people got
together with the egcs people and merged the two compilers to make a
best of both
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Raffaele Sandrini wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I am really confused over the different compilers wich seems to be
> together.
>
> Does EGCS exist today? or is it included in GCC. Many software recomments
> to be compiled with egcs (???). I have GCC 2.95.2 in
Hi all
I am really confused over the different compilers wich seems to be
together.
Does EGCS exist today? or is it included in GCC. Many software recomments
to be compiled with egcs (???). I have GCC 2.95.2 installed on my machine
wich seems to be the latest version of GCC. The kernel doc
On Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 04:28:00PM +0200, Marc Meier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for egcs (egcc/eg++) in potato.
>
> Were the cygnus compilers being removed from the
> distribution?
The mainline gcc 2.95.2 is egcs. Egcs merged back with the FSF, and is now
produci
Hello,
I'm looking for egcs (egcc/eg++) in potato.
Were the cygnus compilers being removed from the
distribution?
Regards
--
Marc Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All,
Does anybody know if -march=pentium in egcc implies automatically the
-malign-double?
--
TIA
Wojciech M. Zabolotny
http://www.ise.pw.edu.pl/~wzab <--> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freedos.org Free DOS for free people
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 09:10:35PM -0600, Timothy C. Phan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to know which debian package is the egcs?
> Thanks
You want the old egcs? gcc-2.95 == egcs.
--
++
| Eric G. Miller
Hi,
I'd like to know which debian package is the egcs?
Thanks
---
tcp
included from ../../gcc/c-lex.c:25:
../../gcc/rtl.h:1074: genrtl.h: No such file or directory
make[3]: *** [c-lex.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/root/egcs-build/egcs-1.1.2/builddir/gcc'
make[2]: *** [bootstrap-lean] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/egcs-build/egcs-1.1.2/bui
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 01:20:28PM +1100, Shaun Cloherty wrote
> I'm running Debian (slink) on an Alpha, and attempting to recompile the egcs
> compiler suite from the Debian source package;
>
> egcs_1.1.2-0slink2.diff.gz
> egcs_1.1.2-0slink2.dsc
> egcs_1.1.2.orig.tar.gz
&
Yes, you can either comment out a few lines in debian/rules (anything
referring to with_check) or install expect and dejagnu.
C
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Shaun Cloherty wrote:
> I'm running Debian (slink) on an Alpha, and attempting to recompile the egcs
> compiler suite from the De
I'm running Debian (slink) on an Alpha, and attempting to recompile the egcs
compiler suite from the Debian source package;
egcs_1.1.2-0slink2.diff.gz
egcs_1.1.2-0slink2.dsc
egcs_1.1.2.orig.tar.gz
after unpacking the source, I ran
# dpkg-source -us -uc -b
in the source directory, bu
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> Hi,
>
> I'm having trouble finding the apt-get package name for egcs. Are
> there any packages that have that?
Try installing the package egcc.
--
---
On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 07:12:57PM -0500, Bart Szyszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having trouble finding the apt-get package name for
> egcs. Are there any packages that have that?
In slink, the gcc package is egcs 1.1.2. Currently egcs has been
maintained as the mainline gcc, so gcc
well this may not answer your question the newest GCC releases are the
work of the egcs group and i believe the egcs group totally took over gcc
development, so you may try looking for something along the lines of gcc
2.9 gcc2.95 2.95.1(?) etc ..
nate
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Bart Szyszka wrote
Hi,
I'm having trouble finding the apt-get package name for
egcs. Are there any packages that have that?
--
Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:4982727
B Grafyx http://www.bgrafyx.com
Join AllAdvantage.com and get paid to surf the Web!
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=ARD582
Can I install the current slink version of egcs (1.1.1) alongside the
1.0.x version?
Thanks
--
-bob
An optimist says the glass is half full, a pessimist says the glass
is half-empty. An engineer says the glass is twice as big as it
needs to be
Hi Robert,
On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 07:40:09PM -0600, Robert Kerr wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm using egcs for my software project. This is the output for g++ -v.
> gcc version egcs-2.91.60 Debian 2.1 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
are you aware that the egcs team is now the official maintainer of
Hi All,
I'm using egcs for my software project. This is the output for g++ -v.
gcc version egcs-2.91.60 Debian 2.1 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
I've run across an internal compiler error, and hesitate to report it as a
bug unless it's also a bug in the latest version of egcs. So, what I
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 08:01:37 -0600, Robert Kerr wrote:
> can g++ (the egcs version) and g++272 coexist successfully?
No; the library packages they need conflict. g++272 was a crude hack to
allow package maintainers a backdoor for compiling old code.
> I'm using a slink system
Hi all,
can g++ (the egcs version) and g++272 coexist successfully?
I'm using a slink system, and think that I need to back up the g++272
compiler for a legacy app, but don't want to mess anything up with my
current happy egcs g++ compiler.
--
-bob
An optimist says the glass is ha
from gcc -v
gcc version egcs-2.91.66 Debian GNU/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)
toupper and tolower throw warnings (or not) depending on optimization.
Compiling the following test program with:
cc -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c junk.c
will not give any errors. However, adding -O causes ansi
r the impression that there are illegal constructs in 2.0 that
GCC likes but EGCS hates, and that these problems were fixed in the 2.1
development
tree some time ago. The whole GCC/EGCS thing is mostly political, IMHO, as
many agree that EGCS is the superior compiler. There was a big thread on -de
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 12:18:50AM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
>
> Ok, whose big idea was it not to provide a real gcc in potato? Maybe it
> is me but I couldn't find one. I did an auto-upgrade and broke my ability
> to compile 2.0.27-pre kernels cleanly.
>
> I don&#x
27;s patches more than Linus' releases (though I
did a grep in 2.2.5-ac3 for initio, and didn't find an update (relative to
2.2.5)).
> 2.2.5 won't build with the egcs in potato either.
For a particular configuration perhaps. I've had no problems compiling
2.2.X(-acY) kernel
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 00:18:50 -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> Ok, whose big idea was it not to provide a real gcc in potato?
Fully switching to EGCS has been planned for potato for quite some time now.
> Maybe it is me but I couldn't find one.
There isn't one, yet. We'r
something with screen
// SEGFAULT!
}
I kicked myself in the head when I found the problem:
duplicate declaration of screen at different scopes.
Is there any way to get EGCS to give me a warning about
this?
--
Stephen Pitts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
webmaster - http://www.mschess.org
Herbert Rosmanith wrote:
>
> subject says it. I built 2.0.36 with egcs-1.1, everything works quite
> normal except the X-Server dumps core, regardsless if I start SVGA, VGA16
> or Mach64 (in my case) server.
>
> I don't have the nerve to compile the XServer myself with
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 17:33:42 -0800, Jian Gong wrote:
> Does anybody know the difference and/or relationship between
>
> egcs 1.1.1 as the latest version
That version is available in "frozen" and "unstable"; it will be part of
Debian 2.1.
> and egc
Does anybody know the difference and/or relationship between
egcs 1.1.1 as the latest version (see egcs' home page:
egcs-www.cygnus.com)
and
egcs 2.90.29 in Debian distribution?
TIA
Jian
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 14:50:43 -0800, G. Crimp wrote:
> The egcs versions of gcc and g++ are not both yet ready for prime
> time. I may get corrected on this,
Indeed.
> but I think it is gcc that still has some bugs,
Wrong. To quote /usr/doc/gcc/README.Debian:
:- FSF gc
t a better answer from
someone else, but I will give it a try. Apparently, gcc and g++ development
became fragmented as developers split into a number of camps. GNU gcc and
g++ development (Deb gcc and g++ were the GNU versions) has halted, or at
least slowed to a trickle. egcs is a movement to
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, fantumn (Steven Baker) wrote:
> > First, was wondering _what_ the differences between gcc and egcs were.
> It is mostly a matter of version
Somewhere in /usr/doc/gcc (sorry, don't remember exactly where) I
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:16:32 +0100, Conrado Badenas wrote:
> What "egcs" means?
It used to mean Experimental GCC Compiler Suite, though AFAIK it's not
expanded anywhere on the EGCS website (http://egcs.cygnus.com) anymore.
> If both gcc and egcs are developed
dead and all development is focused on
> egcs - apparently the gcc people will take code from egcs to create the
> next gcc releases or something.
What "egcs" means?
gcc is for GNU C Compiler, egcc is for GNU (egcs) C Compiler. But, does
the "g" from "egcs" come from "
>another gcc.
>
> > Do the 2.2 kernels compile with egcs?
>
> As of somewhere in the 2.1 series Linux kernels should work with egcs.
I've been using an egcc compiled 2.1 kernel for a few months now and
the 2.2.0-pre serie works with no problem when compiled with egcc.
C
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 02:49:17PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:58:29 -0700 (MST), Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >for our gcc because nobody has patched the 2.0 kernels to work with
> >another gcc.
> Do the 2.2 kernels compile with egcs?
As of somewhere
binWATVpeuW5K.bin
Description: Binary data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:58:29 -0700 (MST), Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>for our gcc because nobody has patched the 2.0 kernels to work with
>another gcc.
Do the 2.2 kernels compile with egcs?
- --
Steve C
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, fantumn (Steven Baker) wrote:
> Okay, I don't want to start a holy war or anything here, but I have some
> questions about egcs and gcc.
>
> First, was wondering _what_ the differences between gcc and egcs were.
It is mostly a matter of version
gcc 2.
Okay, I don't want to start a holy war or anything here, but I have some
questions about egcs and gcc.
First, was wondering _what_ the differences between gcc and egcs were.
(Note: when I say gcc, I mean gcc _and_ g++)
Compatibility: First, can egcs compile everything that gcc can? IE: k
nsion library - old runtime
ii libg++2.8.2 2.91.60-1 The GNU C++ extension library - runtime vers
ii libg++272 2.7.2.8-0.1The GNU C++ libraries (libc6 version).
ii libstdc++2.82.90.29-2 The GNU stdc++ library (old egcs version)
ii libstdc++2.92.91.60-1 The GNU
Well, here's the situation. I'm trying to port a package to Linux which,
unfortunately, depends a great deal on generic.h and stuff that only comes
in the libg++ package. But, I'm also using the egcs compiler, which
doesn't include libg++. From the egcs home page I've
Hello,
> >I left the source as it was, but added some softlinks, like
> >/usr/include/X11/GL -> /usr/include/GL
>
> Me to, but I had to edit out some refs. to a /GL/GLw/ directory included
> file - the header file was actually under /GL, and Glw doesn't exist on
> my system.
I used softlinks thr
>Subject: Re: g++2.8, egcs, gcc 2.7.2, etc. - *very confused*
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Waller)
>Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 16:30:50 +1100 (EST)
>Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>From: Jiri Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Hello,
>
>> Over the weekend, I downlao
.org.uk/~ijackson/sane98-talk.ps or ESR's
writings.
The EGCS project has brought nearly all of gcc's lost children together
again. That's progress.
Second, de facto there is no fork. The FSF gcc development is dead (or at
least smelling /very/ funny), though the FSF doesn't admit
Martin Waller wrote:
>
> >
> >Read /usr/doc/gcc/README.Debian .
> >
>
> I did but was still confused :(
>
>
It didn't say *why* we have an apparent fork in compiler development.
Since the gcc compiler is at the core of Linux (behind only the kernel
itself in importance), having a semi-
ne (unless
there's something in macros), so that had to be what it was complaining about
:-)
Getting rid of it fixed the problem. I hope it didn't break anything (but
FREEdraft compiled and ran okay, so I guess not).
> Being naive enough to try anything, and having heard of all sorts
>
>Read /usr/doc/gcc/README.Debian .
>
I did but was still confused :(
>> Being naive enough to try anything, and having heard of all sorts of
>> problems with egcs and g++, I decided to scrap g++2.8 and put
g++2.7.2 on.
>> (I had egcs 2.90.29, dated 19980515).
>
enough to try anything, and having heard of all sorts of
> problems with egcs and g++, I decided to scrap g++2.8 and put g++2.7.2 on.
> (I had egcs 2.90.29, dated 19980515).
g++2.7.2 is intended only for compiling code that cannot be compiled with
EGCS gcc. It's not supposed to be easy to
uld work. But then I got the make error message:
In vbglcnv.h:51:Invalid storage class specifiers decalared in friend
functions
I didn't have a clue what this meant even after viewing the two friend
functions alluded to.
Being naive enough to try anything, and having heard of all sorts of
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 21:20:51 -0600, Chris Frost wrote:
> Has anyone grabbed egcs 1.1.1 and compiled it?
The last egcs 1.1.1 prerelease (which is identical to the release) is
available in both frozen and unstable.
Ray
--
PATRIOTISM A great British writer once said that if he had to cho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Has anyone grabbed egcs 1.1.1 and compiled it? Does it do so cleanly?
Chris
<- Visit Me At <http://www.frostnet.advicom.net
Hi,
> Please can someone explain to me the difference between EGCS compilers
> and non-EGCS ones? The little info given in dselect is not very
> informative.
EGCS is the Experimental GNU Compiler System. It is on a slightly faster
development track then GCC 2.8.1, for example.
On Fri, Sep 04, 1998 at 05:07:51PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Please can someone explain to me the difference between EGCS compilers and
> non-EGCS ones?
See the README included in the various egcs packages (e.g. g++), and
question 1 of the egcs FAQ at http://egcs.cygnus.com/faq.html
Please can someone explain to me the difference between EGCS compilers
and non-EGCS ones? The little info given in dselect is not very
informative.
Thanks,
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey Email
On Thu, Sep 03, 1998 at 11:55:49AM -0400, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Any idea when EGCS 1.1 will be packaged?
It is packaged. Currently it's available only on my harddisk. I'll upload it
tomorrow morning CET.
HTH,
Ray
--
ART A friend of mine in Tulsa, Okla., when I was about eleven ye
Hi all,
Any idea when EGCS 1.1 will be packaged? I'd really like to have it.
Otherwise, I'll just stick it in /usr/local myself. :)
-Ossama
__
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Aug 08, 1998 at 05:58:27PM -0230, Greg Starkes wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Liran Zvibel wrote:
> > The problem is that gcc is an ANSI C compiler, and you wanted to compile
> > a C++ program. I think that If you have just changed gcc to g++ ( the
> > GNU C++ compiler) everything would have
xmkmf set CXX=c++ and CC=gcc. At this point I
> > should mention that I did NOT have egcs installed on my system, so c++ did
> > not exist, and when I changed the Makefile so that CXX=gcc, gcc
> > complained. (I can't remember the exact error, and I am away from my
> > mac
tion that I did NOT have egcs installed on my system, so c++ did
> not exist, and when I changed the Makefile so that CXX=gcc, gcc
> complained. (I can't remember the exact error, and I am away from my
> machine.)
The problem is that gcc is an ANSI C compiler, and you wanted to compi
Last night I was trying to compile to programs that were written in c++
(wmcdplay & wmmixer). The installation instructions said to run xmkmf,
then make. When I did this xmkmf set CXX=c++ and CC=gcc. At this point I
should mention that I did NOT have egcs installed on my system, so c++ did
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this are old libg++ headers. libg++ is obsolete, don't use it if
> you can help it.
Thanks for the clarification. I was compiling a package whose includes
"included" the header files in question, so I wasn't free to pick and
choose.
I guess a
On Wed, Jul 01, 1998 at 10:14:23PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> > There seem to be (at least) four files not installed in the
> > ../include/g++ directory that is produced by egcs that _are_ part of the
> > GNU g++ includes, na
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> There seem to be (at least) four files not installed in the ../include/g++
> directory that is produced by egcs that _are_ part of the GNU g++ includes,
> namely
>
> Regex.h
> Pix.h
> String.h
> SLList.h
>
> Why is th
There seem to be (at least) four files not installed in the ../include/g++
directory that is produced by egcs that _are_ part of the GNU g++ includes,
namely
Regex.h
Pix.h
String.h
SLList.h
Why is this, and can anyone suggest the most elegant method for making these
absent includes available if
On Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 03:45:14AM -0300, Kevin M.Bealer wrote:
> I have been using the old G++ for some time and recently found that
> upgrading has caused the genclass script, String library, and other GNU
> stuff to disappear. Is there a package I am missing? Do I need to switch
> over to the S
I have been using the old G++ for some time and recently found that
upgrading has caused the genclass script, String library, and other
GNU stuff to disappear. Is there a package I am missing? Do I need
to switch over to the STL?
I am using the genclass types in a project for school -- The scho
Hi,
this small program doesn't seem to work properly with egcs. I was wondering if
this is a kwown bug/problem or if I am just doing something *very* stupid:
#include
#include
main()
{
cout.fill(' ');
for(float i=0;i<10;i+=0.1)
cout << setprecision(2) << s
91 matches
Mail list logo
