Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:20:30
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3 by Dhruba Bandopadhyay
begin  quote
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 > creation?
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 speed though. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3 David Nielsen <Lovechild@××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3 David Nielsen <Lovechild@××××××××.com>