On 16 May 2003 13:00:53 +0100
Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> There is an ebuild for it on bugzilla and one here and some on forums
> too. Have you used any of these as a definitive base or is this a new
Neither, I wanted a go at it again (I haven't been messing with gcc
since 3.1 days) so I started from last known working 3.2.3 and went on.
> Also, is there any sign of this being entered into hardmasked or
> testig state on portage?
I'm not the maintainer of gcc, so I shall leave that up to Azarah to
decide, let him distill the different builds along with his own
experience to see what goes.
> I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of
> pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will
> sort them out.
It may, so far it appears some old c++ code will barf though. not sure
about glibc and kernel issues either.
> Pardon my ignorance but have all these patches been commented out to
> prevent resultant problems or because they are no longer necessary?
Thats up to the maintainer, since I havent taken the time to go through
the patches each in turn and verify wether it is needed anymore I just
commented it out to see what happened. I suspect a lot of them are no
longer necessary, and those that are will have to be re-diffed in a new
manner, not really an easy task.
I suspect the real build won't enter portage until propolice is up in
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.