On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 10:21:29PM -0700, ferret@phonewave.net wrote:
> Has anyone successfully patched and compiled a pgcc/egcs package for
> Slink? I was able to patch for Potato using the gcc source package and a
> slightly older gcc source tarball patched with the pgcc patches.
I've not built packages, but I've built it in /usr/local. If anyone has
any packages avalible could they please tell me about them so I can put
them in the PGCC FAQ? If you don't have any space to upload them I can
provide some.
Last time I asked the Debian gcc maintainers, the main reason for its
absence appeared to be a lack of people willing and able to do the job
rather than anything else.
> I recently updated one of my testing machines to Potato, and the patched
> gcc seems to be working fine. Unfortunately, the Potato gcc source package
> requires the Potato debhelper, which won't compile without versioned perl,
> and the slink egcs package doesn't patch with any pgcc patch files. :/
You can probably convince it to build without too much hacking at the
dependancies, or you could just upgrade perl (which works now). Or just
carry on using your existing package.
> Is there any documentation on compiling for glibc 2.0 on a glibc 2.1
> system?
It's not supported that I'm aware of.
Note that the two versions are (bugs in the user package aside) source
compatible, so if all you want to do is build a new version of the package
there shouldn't be any problems. It's only a problem if you want to run
glibc2.1 binaries on a glibc2.0 system.
> And how could I verify that the patched compiler is actually producing
> optimised code? (In my case for AMD K6 with MMX)
Benchmarking. Even if the compiler thinks it is generating code
optimised for your processor, there's no guarantee that it will
actually run any faster.
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Attachment:
pgpkLFlYlZpWh.pgp
Description: PGP signature