--- Comment #17 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-01 15:07 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> On a not-completely-OT note: Can anyone explain what this WITHOUT_GPLV3 is
> about? I can't find any mentioning of it on freebsd.org...
>
It hasn't been implemented, yet.
I don't want to
--- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-01 11:32 ---
On a not-completely-OT note: Can anyone explain what this WITHOUT_GPLV3 is
about? I can't find any mentioning of it on freebsd.org...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39193
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-01 10:14
---
GCC 4.2.x is no longer supported. FreeBSD is on its own.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-01 03:31 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Alas, it would seem that, due to licensing issues, newer GCC versions are
> unsupported for building the FreeBSD base system.
The above isn't exactly true. No one has stepped forward to i
--- Comment #13 from cyberleo at cyberleo dot net 2010-02-01 01:39 ---
Alas, it would seem that, due to licensing issues, newer GCC versions are
unsupported for building the FreeBSD base system.
For note, I managed to get this section to compile with my chosen optimization
flags (-Os -m
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-31 11:31 ---
GCC 4.2 is no longer maintained, and the code that ICEs had been almost
completely rewritten. Does this also fail with newer compilers?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39193
--- Comment #11 from cyberleo at cyberleo dot net 2010-01-31 11:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=19763)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19763&action=view)
Preprocessed source
Seems to exist on 8.0-RELEASE-p2, but only when -Os and certain -march are
used.
cc (GCC) 4
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 19:00 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created an attachment (id=17302)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17302&action=view) [edit]
> Proprocessed source of the error
>
> Yes, should have thought to do that bef
