On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, kjdevel wrote:
> 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 no, this is purely for 2.95 and 2.95.1 -- I'll make this a little
clearer.
> 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?
Again, a pre-2.95.2 thing. It's all handled in `configure' now as
far as I can see. Look for `SUBTARGET_OLD_LINKER' -- that's what's
replaced the old stuff.
> 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?
Nope, those are C++ files, and aren't in your distribution. I'll add
a note about this.
> 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?
Er, not that I know of.
> 4. which linux kernel versions are compatible with the above versions of
> the tool-chain?
Um, no idea. I tend to use the most recent versions of tools available,
with the rationale that being too tentative to use newer is hardly
going to make bugs in the newest stuff get fixed any faster (if you
parse that senence).
--
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ( http://www.fluff.org/chris )
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
++ Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for ++
++ kernel-related discussions. ++
