On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 13:57, Kumba wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > Not sure, but I would like to get gcc-3.3.2-r5 or so in as well. Is
> > this still possible ?
> > Thanks,
> I'm building mips stages with gcc-3.3.2-r4. -r5 will not merge on my
> Indy, although other mips users (with roughly the same Indy specs I
> have) have reported success with that version of gcc. It keeps getting
> to a C++ source file in the final stages of gcc's bootstrap, and just
> hangs the compile up. Doesn't hang the box, and no error messages or
> zombified processes that I can find. Still doing research into the
> cause, I'm beginning to think I have something funny going on with the
> chroot environment.
Even 3.3.2-r4 is fine (and was longer tested), but the point is, we need
a 3.3.x out, as there is a _lot_ of pentium4 fixes, as well as others.
I will do -r6 in a bit, maybe you can give it a bit of testing on your
> As for sparc, we've been using the gcc33-sparc64-1.4 profile to test
> gcc-3.3.x on sparc. Whether it is safe enough to declare stable, I'll
> let Weeve make that call.
Ill wait for him then.
> x86, I've had no problems really. Just we need to get the new etcat
> version out because gcc-3.3.2-r5 scans for the @guard symbols, and older
> etcat versions do not work with the newer 2.0.50 portage, causing the
> ebuild to fail (this has been my experience on sparc64 actually, but I
> would not be surprised for this to popup up elsewhere for those who
> haven't upgraded gentoolkit yet (like me)).
Right, lanius (whoever), any eta on the new etcat?
Also, any definate reasons on the PPC lag in gcc versions? They do not
even have 3.3.x in testing ....
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa