> > Are you trying to compile the -stable version of gcc? We make significant
> > modifications to integrate it within our environment. I would not at all
> > be suprised if the -stable version of gcc doesn't build on -current.
...
> > You are aware that there are gcc ports set up to configure th
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:31:02PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> If you're going to try and
> use the -stable compiler on -current, you'll have to stub this out.
You can use a 4.x compiler on -current in chroot or jail
environment. I haven't tried to build gcc 2.9.x in -current.
--
Steve
To Unsub
Well, I was able to build it on -CURRENT, along with binutils
and other fine software from -STABLE tree. The reason was that
in several cases GCC 3.2.1 proved to be significantly slower
than 2.95.4 (I mean regular integer\floating-point operations,
MMX\SSE\3DNow! is a whole different story). I repl
Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
> Hello gentlemen,
>
> the question is, why param.h (v1.65) that comes with 5.0
> doesn't define OBJFORMAT_NAMES and OBJFORMAT_DEFAULT, but
> v1.54 does? These are required by GCC 2.95.4 at compile-time
> (pulled from -STABLE). It may look like someone had decided
> t
