| |
Shouldn't. That's what my current set of tools was compiled with. When I
referred (elsewhere?) to "changes with 2.95," I meant only that 2.95
has a different configuration syntax.
Luis
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Andy Gombos wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:26:43 GMT
> From: Andy Gombos <gombos@ne.infi.net>
> To: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos@lugnet.com
> Subject: EGCS and GCC
>
> I am downloading the source for egcs 1.1.2 now. I was jsut wondering if it made
> any difference if I was compiling this, and binutils, with GCC 2.95. I know
> that there are errors in it, but I did not think that this will be a problem.
> Just thought I'd ask.
>
> Andy
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Summertime... and the living is easy...
fish are jumping and the cotton is high...
So hush, little baby, baby don't you cry."
-Ella
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: EGCS and GCC
|
| Okay. Binutils compiled and installed fine, but when I try to compile egcs, I get many errors, unrelated to any libraries. When I run the failed commands manually (without make), they compile fine. Then I got an error about not having enough virtual (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | EGCS and GCC
|
| I am downloading the source for egcs 1.1.2 now. I was jsut wondering if it made any difference if I was compiling this, and binutils, with GCC 2.95. I know that there are errors in it, but I did not think that this will be a problem. Just thought (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
