[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc, binutils and uclibc of reference?

Hi Benjamin an all others, 
Quoting Henrion Benjamin <bh@udev.org>: 
> I don't know if there are some versions of gcc, binutils or uclibc 
> that are versions of reference for the future emdebian distrib. 
> I've seen sometimes my apps (from uCdist) compiling under gcc 2.95, but 
> not under gcc 3.0. 
I would go personally for a 3.2 or 3.3 version. Gcc 3.X has matured and I believe it is quite a big 
improvement on 3.0. It could happen that some apps do not compile correctly but I believe this 
will be fixed with newer releases of the programs that don't because of the better optimalisations 
you can find in gcc 3.x. The binutils usually don't give a lot of problems (at least I never had a 
problem related to them, but because I do not have that much experience they could anyway) 
and any recent version should do. 
Uclibc is a completely other matter. The version available now is 0.9.26 and is quite stable I 
believe (I'm using it now in my latest toolchain and everything seems to work) However since the 
0.9.25 release they are saying they WILL be breaking binary compatibilty in the upcoming 
> What do we need to have a first shot of emdebian? 
Wookey, Justin and I are working on a text about it that should be available quite soon. You 
should be able to find the answers in there I hope. 
> I've created #emdebian on irc, for those of you who are interested... 
On which channel? (Time to train my IRC skills in console mode because my proxy blocks it, 
luckily I have an ssh link to it :) ) 
| Philippe De Swert -GNU/linux - uClinux freak-     
| Stag developer http://www.mind.be/stag     
| Emdebian developer: http://www.emdebian.org 
| Please do not send me documents in a closed format. (*.doc,*.xls,*.ppt)   
| Use the open alternatives. (*.pdf,*.ps,*.html,*.txt)   
| Why? http://pallieter.is-a-geek.org:7832/~johan/word/english/   

Gestuurd via het webmailsysteem van het De Nayer Instituut: www.denayer.be

Reply to: