> "David O'Brien" wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 11:37:18AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> > > This is the scoop.
> > ..snip..
> > > gcc -v
> > > Using builtin specs.
> > > gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
> > ..snip..
> > > Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
> >
> > What othe
"David O'Brien" wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 11:37:18AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> > This is the scoop.
> ..snip..
> > gcc -v
> > Using builtin specs.
> > gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
> ..snip..
> > Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
>
> What other platforms w/gcc 2.95
Hi David,
Last time, the problem does not exist with the gcc-devel port
which directly implies that the problem has been fixed so I see
no point on reporting the bug to Cygnus. I can in the future
report the bug to Cygnus if the bug has not been fixed
in a subsequent snapshot.
I will play wit
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 07:43:07PM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> >Gcc 2.96 will not be out before 4.0. So Gcc 2.95.x is what is going into
> >4.0. Now should a Gcc 2.95.3 were to come out, then we'd get a new
> >compiler for 4.0.
>
> >Lets think about this in FreeBSD terms -- 4.0 does not have
>Gcc 2.96 will not be out before 4.0. So Gcc 2.95.x is what is going into
>4.0. Now should a Gcc 2.95.3 were to come out, then we'd get a new
>compiler for 4.0.
>Lets think about this in FreeBSD terms -- 4.0 does not have some problem
>that 3.4-R does. However it wasn't known that 3.4-R had
On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 02:21:48PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
> ...the idea was to continue the make process further along to where
> another source file that also included LevelStat.h got compiled, to
> check whether it bombs as well - it didn't.
``make -k'' might have been a better choice as you
> > 3. Raise this issue with Cygnus.
>
> Not really Cygnus is the wrong organization to raise this issue .
Could you *please* explain why???
Gcc 2.96 will not be out before 4.0. So Gcc 2.95.x is what is going into
4.0. Now should a Gcc 2.95.3 were to come out, then we'd get a new
compiler fo
> 3. Raise this issue with Cygnus.
Not really Cygnus is the wrong organization to raise this issue .
As someone else pointed out the gcc-devel port does not exhibit the bug
which I posted.
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubsc
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 11:37:18AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> This is the scoop.
..snip..
> gcc -v
> Using builtin specs.
> gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
..snip..
> Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
What other platforms w/gcc 2.95 have you tried to build this X11 version
o
On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 02:40:46AM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
> In file included from include/PortMgr.h:29,
> from Connection.cc:33:
> include/LevelStat.h:55: invalid type `const char[1]' for default argument
> to `const String &'
..snip..
> The "offending" code looks like this:
>
Hi,
We just have a buggy version of gcc and it appears that
the register allocator is the main problematic area.
This is not really a problem for me because what I first
try out is a newer version of gcc if I can not get
around the compile problem. At any rate remember
that at least my repor
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
!>
!>Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
!>
!>gcc -c bug.c
!>
Ouch! This looks an awful lot like the last report with `GCC' and
`problem' in the subject. As Matt just mentionned one or two posts ago,
and as I observed in the last th
> Sending out an attachment of that size to a public mailing list was
> hardly necessary, and the increasing stridency of your posts leading
> up to this only serve to indicate that you may be heading in the truly
> wrong direction with all this and seriously need to rethink your
> strategy before
:>
:> FreeBSD -current was last cvsup on my system on Dec 23 18:59.
:>
:> XFree86 3.9.xxx was cvsup on December 24th I am sorry but this is
:> sufficient information to reproduce the problem.
:
:No, it is not, because we can't *get* XFree86 3.9.xxx -current, so we
:cannot reproduce it, can w
> Sending out an attachment of that size to a public mailing list was
> hardly necessary, and the increasing stridency of your posts leading
> up to this only serve to indicate that you may be heading in the truly
> wrong direction with all this and seriously need to rethink your
> strategy before
:Amancio Hasty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...
:
:While trying to compile the latest version of XFree86 I found the following
:compiler bug.
:
:{root} gcc -v
:Using builtin specs.
:gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
I was able to compile up both XFree 3.9.16 with the older egcs release:
a
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > XFree86 3.9.xxx was cvsup on December 24th I am sorry but this is
> > sufficient information to reproduce the problem.
[snip]
> Insisting that someone cvsup the entire X source tree, as you've
> clearly *already* done, hardly falls into the
Sending out an attachment of that size to a public mailing list was
hardly necessary, and the increasing stridency of your posts leading
up to this only serve to indicate that you may be heading in the truly
wrong direction with all this and seriously need to rethink your
strategy before you do so
> XFree86 3.9.xxx was cvsup on December 24th I am sorry but this is
> sufficient information to reproduce the problem.
Not if you actually want the problem solved. There's this thing
called "making it easy on the people you're demanding things of" in
order that they might have some chance of
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
>
> GCC 2.95.2 is a *RELEASED* version. We don't use snapshots as the base
> compiler. What every the problem is 4.0 will live with it unless someone
> narrows down the problem more.
The latest Polygrap
Amancio Hasty wrote:
> I really doubt that I am the only one here that can get XFree86 3.9.xxx -curr
ent .
> Nevertheless if it can help out to fix the default compiler here is the infor
mation which
> you reguested.
>
> Command Line executed to generate the output file and with the exc
Amancio Hasty wrote:
>
> Look I stated previously and only a few hours ago:
>
> ---
> >Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
> >December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
> >
> >I am running Fr
Look I stated previously and only a few hours ago:
---
>Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
>December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
>
>I am running FreeBSD -current and XFree86 3.9xxx cur
Amancio Hasty wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> >
> > > The details were previously posted by .
> > >
> > > Good Nite
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Whatever ate the details on your previous post seems to be at it again.
>
> Here is a copy of my mail post which I received from th
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
>
> > The details were previously posted by .
> >
> > Good Nite
> >
> >
>
> Whatever ate the details on your previous post seems to be at it again.
Here is a copy of my mail post which I received from the -current mail list
that is my post went
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> The details were previously posted by .
>
> Good Nite
>
>
Whatever ate the details on your previous post seems to be at it again.
--
- bill fumerola - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - BF1560 - computer horizons corp -
- ph:(800) 252-2421 - [EMAIL PROTECT
The details were previously posted by .
Good Nite
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
> December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
>
> I am running FreeBSD -current and XFree86 3.9xxx current.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Typically this empty space would
Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
I am running FreeBSD -current and XFree86 3.9xxx current.
> > Thats nice . Now we have a compiler which fails to build X.
>
> This seems like hyperbole.
> Thats nice . Now we have a compiler which fails to build X.
This seems like hyperbole. I'm able to build X just fine with the
-current compiler, so to directly imply that we can't do so flies in
the face of common sense and experience.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thats nice . Now we have a compiler which fails to build X.
> > >Actually, that's one of the newest versions of gcc.
> >
> > Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
>
> GCC 2.95.2 is a *RELEASED* version. We don't use snapshots as the base
> compiler. What every the problem is 4.0 will l
On Sun, Dec 26, 1999 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
> I get similar errors trying to compile aview from ports. I just
> updated my ports tree, so that can't be the problem. See the
> attached make.log. There's something about not allowing access
> to the cx register.
...
> sstring.h:49
> >Actually, that's one of the newest versions of gcc.
>
> Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
GCC 2.95.2 is a *RELEASED* version. We don't use snapshots as the base
compiler. What every the problem is 4.0 will live with it unless someone
narrows down the problem more.
--
-- David
>Actually, that's one of the newest versions of gcc.
Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
>attached make.log. There's something about not allowing access
>to the cx register.
I am not into hacking gcc's register allocator 8)
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: s
Amancio Hasty wrote:
>
> While trying to compile the latest version of XFree86 I found the following
> compiler bug.
>
> {root} gcc -v
> Using builtin specs.
> gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
>
> I assume that this an old version of gcc...
Actually, that's one of the newest versions of g
While trying to compile the latest version of XFree86 I found the following
compiler bug.
{root} gcc -v
Using builtin specs.
gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
I assume that this an old version of gcc...
xc/programs/Xserver/Xext
cc -c -pipe -O2 -ansi -pedantic -Dasm=__asm -Wall -Wpointer
36 matches
Mail list logo
