Re: Status of various major things
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:51:22AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
> I'd believe it. Another reason to use 3.0 as the default, if I can make it
> work. Sadly, NetBSD still uses egcs 2.91 as it's default compiler, so I have
> no idea if we might need 2.95 as a kernel compiler. Hopefully we can get
> the kernel patched to be clean for 3.0, if it's not. I guess we'll see.
>
> "it should work." while the in-tree compiler for 1.5 is egcs 1.1.2+patches,
> -current has had 2.95 for a while now. also myself and others try to build
> kernels & the whole tree with gcc-current at times... we don't tend to have
> the same "upgrade gcc, fix kernel" lossage, at least not as badly :-)
*dry chuckle*
Gee. Someone might think you were referring to something. *Eyes the big
message on binutils about breaking 'older, and newer kernels'.*
BTW, binutils for netbsd-i386 *does* appear to work sanely, and is now in
the upstream. At least, it both compiled and run-time linked all the C++
code I could easily put my hands on to test (I used groff, which broke in
upgrading to GCC 2.95.4 local compile due to libstdc++ stuff; it's visibly
linked to the library, as well, so it SHOULD break in one way or another if
anything is seriously wrong... also used a local software project that's
very heavily C++ oriented)
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Reply to: