cd /; tar ztf package.tar.gz | xargs rm
;)
2010/1/15 Anselm R Garbe :
> 2010/1/15 Jimmy Tang :
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
>>> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>>>
>>> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the be
2010/1/15 Jimmy Tang :
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
>> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>>
>> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the best
>> one but at least is sane.
>>
>> Current toolchain is just to get a work
Jimmy Tang wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the best
one but at least is sane.
Current toolchain is just to get a working version. I
2010/1/14 pancake :
> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
gcc is required unless one doesn't want to fuck with each source code
unfortunately. Obviously glibc is only used when it cannot be avoided,
otherwise my current preference is uclibc.
> Tcc and dietlibc are usable
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>
> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the best
> one but at least is sane.
>
> Current toolchain is just to get a working version. I know that ansel
This is all silly-talk, building the Linux kernel with anything other
than gcc is currently not practical, and wont be for some time.
uriel
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Anthony Bentley
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
>> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>
> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the
> best one but at least is sane.
How about pcc?
The configurations of the compilers can usually be extracted from the
executable with ``gfortran -v''
Surma
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:42 PM, pancake wrote:
> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>
> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the best
I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the
best one but at least is sane.
Current toolchain is just to get a working version. I know that anselm
is really busy these days, like me.. This is the reason why
Hi All,
I've been looking at the shipped compilers in the stali repo, I was
just wondering how the compilers were configured. I'm interested in
enabling gfortran for my own uses and testing.
Thanks,
Jimmy
--
Jimmy Tang
Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing,
Lloyd Building, Trinity Colle
10 matches
Mail list logo
