In article ,
Doug Rabson wrote:
> We should also consider installing libbfd.
We can do that any time (ELF only), as far as I'm concerned.
John
--
John Polstra j...@polstra.com
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc.Seattle, Washing
On 2 April 1999 at 22:25, Doug Rabson wrote:
> We should also consider installing libbfd. If and when we bring in a newer
> version of gdb, it would be a good idea to avoid importing yet another
> version of libiberty and libbfd.
... and GNU regex.
Jacques Vidrine / n...@nectar.com / nec...@free
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Also, I seem to recall that we already have another copy of libiberty
> > (under gdb). Do we really need to have both of them?
>
> The EGCS copy is newer. We are considering building a libiberty.* for
> /usr/lib/. Once we know which sources to use, t
> Also, I seem to recall that we already have another copy of libiberty
> (under gdb). Do we really need to have both of them?
The EGCS copy is newer. We are considering building a libiberty.* for
/usr/lib/. Once we know which sources to use, the duplicate can be
deleted.
--
-- David(obr.
> > Is there a simple knob to turn to get the egcs compiler by
> > default?
>
> Not really. You would have to CVSup my src/gnu/ bits and spam them over
> the /usr/src/ tree.
When do you intend to "throw the switch" in bringing egcs in by
default? A lot of people are asking and perhaps a bit o
> Is there a simple knob to turn to get the egcs compiler by
> default?
Not really. You would have to CVSup my src/gnu/ bits and spam them over
the /usr/src/ tree.
> And, at the risk of being flamed, I noticed (after all these years)
> that we build some for Objective C stuff. Is this actual
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Is there a simple knob to turn to get the egcs compiler by
> default? I'm willing to help test egcs for the transition
> from gcc+2.7.x.
>
> I've looked through the Makefiles and the /usr/src/gnu directory,
> but I can't seem to locate a knob to turn for
