From: Erwin Authried (eauth@softsys.co.at)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2001 - 13:34:18 EST
Tom, you are talking about the 2.96 release of redhat that was never officially approved by the GCC steering committee. GCC has been the official development name towards 3.0. Here's the full story: http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-2.96.html Nevertheless, there may be some good reasons to use the 2.96 (2.97) snapshot depending on the architecture. As far as I know, several changes have been made in 2.96 with Aplio sponsoring. I have not seen any great announcements or press releases for that, but I'm almost sure that I remember correctly. I think it's time to make a small FAQ that shows which version seem to work or are known to produce wrong code together with specific compiler options. -Erwin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Tom Walsh [SMTP:tom@cyberiansoftware.com] Gesendet am: Montag, 22. Jänner 2001 18:55 An: uclinux-dev@uClinux.org Betreff: Re: [uClinux-dev] GCC tool chain for uClinux "Schipper, Martijn (Contractor)" wrote: > > My questions are: > - Why is everybody using 2.96? We are not! The 2.96 is a RedHat mistake and is not an offically santioned release, it is a hacked version of gcc that RedHat mistakenly released and mis-represented as a full release! AFAIK, the 2.96 has some "improvements" in the C++ code generation that made the RedHat 7 release possible. It is NOT a production compiler! > - What version of 2.96 is this then? (what patches are applied?) > - Which of these patches are going to be incorporated in GCC 3.0? GCC 3.0 is still "pie-in-the-sky", AFAIK, there is no planned release date for it. > - Why can't I use the GCC -fpic or -fPIC options to create Position Independent > code? > - Why do I need the patch from Philip Blundell? (To what source tree should I > apply this patch?) Philip is the maintainer of the ARM gcc cross-compilier, he hacks the gcc sources so that it can emit the necessary opcodes that the ARM processor runs on. > - Why do I need the patch from Vadim Lebedev? (To what source tree should I > apply this patch?) > - Is there another patch that implements the -mdisable-got option? > I would suggest that you get the RPMs: 'ftp://ftp.netwinder.org/users/c/chagas/arm-linux-cross/RPMS/' Regards, TomW This message resent by the uclinux-dev@uclinux.org list server http://www.uClinux.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 19 2002 - 13:19:27 EDT