>1a. should the fold-const patch mentioned on Chis Rutters page still be
> applied to gcc-core-2.95.2? If yes, before or after
> gcc-2.95.2-diff-991022?
No. A better patch is already included in gcc-2.95.2.
>1b. Chriss's page also mentions that in gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h, the
> line that reads #if 0 (near the top) should be changed to #if 1.
> I can't find that line. Perhaps that change is no longer needed?
No, it is no longer there. The autoconf machinery should sort out the
binutils versioning stuff for you.
>2. gcc-2.95.2-diff-991022 doesn't apply cleanly to gcc-core-2.95.2, e.g.,
> the files gcc/cp/parse.h and parse.c are not found, is that a problem?
No. The `cp' directory is C++ and not included in the `core' distribution.
But those patches are useless anyway so you are not missing anything.
>3. the -Dinhibit_libc hack still seems needed when first building gcc as a
> cross-compiler (i.e., without glibc), is there perhaps a more elegant
> method?
No, unfortunately not.
>4. which linux kernel versions are compatible with the above versions of
> the tool-chain?
> (in particular, how about linux-2.2.1, since it seems to be the
> de facto standard for the Psion)
The kernel experts can probably answer this more definitively (try the
linux-arm-kernel list), but I'm fairly sure that version will not work.
Both the 2.2 and 2.3 kernels in CVS seem to be OK though.
p.
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
++ Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for ++
++ kernel-related discussions. ++
