On 5/16/05, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may not have to do with the compiler. The build system may be using cpp
> for some purpose of it's own. Preprocessing source for the C compiler is
> not the only thing cpp gets used for.
That might be true, but two points:
1) quoting from
Michael Marsh wrote:
> The configure scripts are referring to directly to /usr/lib/cpp? If
> so, that's a bug. The compiler knows what the right preprocessor to
> use is, and it should be making that decision.
It may not have to do with the compiler. The build system may be using cpp
for some p
Lee Braiden wrote:
> I'm sure there's an official way to do this. If nothing else, you can
> edit the global make defaults (probably in /usr/share somewhere?), and
> redefine CC
> etc. that way. Otherwise, you can set the CC variable and similar
> variables in the system-wide profile.
O.k., I c
Michael Marsh wrote:
> The configure scripts are referring to directly to /usr/lib/cpp? If
> so, that's a bug. The compiler knows what the right preprocessor to
> use is, and it should be making that decision.
I agree. But finally I found, that setting the environment variable
'CPP' helped the
On 5/13/05, Martin Henne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not what I want. Usually, g++ and gcc call a preprocessor.
> I found, that some configure scripts recognize g++/gcc-3.4 as the
> compiler, when I set the environment variables CXX and CC, but
> they complain about /usr/lib/cpp, which is
Michael Marsh wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Martin Henne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is the environment variable to set the preprocessor to cpp-3.4
>> instead of cpp?
>
> Often, a Makefile will use the $(CC) variable as its C compiler and
> $(CXX) as its C++ compiler,
I know that. But what about
On 5/12/05, Martin Henne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Vangel wrote:
> > When using Makefile's, look at the CC & GCC environmental variables (I'm
> > not actually sure if G++ is included there... sorry...)
> What is the environment variable to set the preprocessor to cpp-3.4
> instead of cpp?
Robert Vangel wrote:
> When using Makefile's, look at the CC & GCC environmental variables (I'm
> not actually sure if G++ is included there... sorry...)
What is the environment variable to set the preprocessor to cpp-3.4
instead of cpp?
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
martin f krafft wrote:
I wanted to give you a chance. :p
Not much hope:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=115353
Ah. I would have left that one open myself :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 10:03, Robert Vangel wrote:
> When using Makefile's, look at the CC & GCC environmental variables (I'm
> not actually sure if G++ is included there... sorry...)
>
> If doing it by hand, obviously just using `/usr/bin/g++-3.4 [continued]'
> would work.
I'm sure there's an o
Hello,
> > >I wish g++ was handled as an alternative too.
> >
> > That does seem a good idea. Is there any reason that nobody's filed it
> > as a wishlist bug?
>
> I wanted to give you a chance. :p
Not much hope:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=115353
cu
Markus Grunwald
Sof
also sprach Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.11.1718 +0200]:
> >I wish g++ was handled as an alternative too.
>
> That does seem a good idea. Is there any reason that nobody's filed it
> as a wishlist bug?
I wanted to give you a chance. :p
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to m
martin f krafft wrote:
I wish g++ was handled as an alternative too.
That does seem a good idea. Is there any reason that nobody's filed it
as a wishlist bug?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
also sprach Michael Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.11.1551 +0200]:
> Well, since the language is C++, it makes sense that the alternative
> is called "c++", not "g++". If you do
The compiler is called g++, and if I have 3.3, 3.4, and 4.0 all
installed, I cannot make the default 3.4 without te
On 5/11/05, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wish g++ was handled as an alternative too.
Well, since the language is C++, it makes sense that the alternative
is called "c++", not "g++". If you do
/usr/sbin/update-alternatives --list c++
though, you should see a version of g++. If y
also sprach Michael Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.11.1500 +0200]:
> Check out update-alternatives, which sets up symlinks in
> /etc/alternatives that are then referenced by other symlinks in
> /usr/bin. The "alternative" you'll most likely want is c++, and
> you'd refer to the compiler as /us
On 5/11/05, Martin Henne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a way to tell debian to use g++-3.4 as the default
> compiler and set all symlinks (at least /usr/bin/gcc, /usr/
> bin/g++ and /usr/lib/cpp) to the right version using the
> normal dpkg tools (like dpkg-reconfigure or something like
> t
Martin Henne wrote:
Is there a way to tell debian to use g++-3.4 as the default
compiler and set all symlinks (at least /usr/bin/gcc, /usr/
bin/g++ and /usr/lib/cpp) to the right version using the
normal dpkg tools (like dpkg-reconfigure or something like
that)?
When using Makefile's, look at the C
Hi all,
I'm using debian sid (updated approx. twice a week) and
I want to use gcc 3.4 (to me more specific: g++ 3.4)
instead of 3.3.x as my default compiler.
It's no problem to install the packages (e.g. g++-3.4),
but in /usr/bin the executables gcc and g++ are still
linked to the old version (
19 matches
Mail list logo
