 | | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted —Luis Villa
|
| | | (...) Because there were some decisions made as to what "incorrect" macros were and weren't by the egcs/gcc teams. For some time, this made compiling the Linux kernel with the newest egcs a serious problem. (...) Cool. -Luis (...) ###...### (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted —Eddie C. Dost
|
| | | | (...) IMHO it is better anyway to use pure assembly files when generating code like memcpy (which is completely in assembly here). Call them memcpy.S, and you won't have the problem of accidentially removing them. With this you can use 'c' style (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted —Luis Villa
|
| | | | (...) I don't know if Markus would approve, but it might be worthwhile to do this and put it in to CVS so that 0.2.4(?) would be compilable with 2.95.x. Does anyone have the time/skill to do this? Markus? Your two cents? -Luis ###...### Profanity is (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) I've posted an update which includes memcpy.s, memset.s (even though this didn't seem to cause a problem, I thought best to keep things consistent) and Makefile (so it doesn't delete *.s for target clean). Just un-tar it to your $LEGOS_HOME. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
