On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:51:22AM +1100, matthew green wrote: > > I'd believe it. Another reason to use 3.0 as the default, if I can make it > work. Sadly, NetBSD still uses egcs 2.91 as it's default compiler, so I > have > no idea if we might need 2.95 as a kernel compiler. Hopefully we can get > the kernel patched to be clean for 3.0, if it's not. I guess we'll see. > > "it should work." while the in-tree compiler for 1.5 is egcs 1.1.2+patches, > -current has had 2.95 for a while now. also myself and others try to build > kernels & the whole tree with gcc-current at times... we don't tend to have > the same "upgrade gcc, fix kernel" lossage, at least not as badly :-)
*dry chuckle* Gee. Someone might think you were referring to something. *Eyes the big message on binutils about breaking 'older, and newer kernels'.* BTW, binutils for netbsd-i386 *does* appear to work sanely, and is now in the upstream. At least, it both compiled and run-time linked all the C++ code I could easily put my hands on to test (I used groff, which broke in upgrading to GCC 2.95.4 local compile due to libstdc++ stuff; it's visibly linked to the library, as well, so it SHOULD break in one way or another if anything is seriously wrong... also used a local software project that's very heavily C++ oriented) -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
