* Christian Sühs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051215 22:22]: > Unfortanetly, with gcc 2.96 I'm not able to compile the LB image itself :D As I said: Don't use 2.96, except the world goes under otherwise. ;)
> Furthermore, I work on a selfmade minimal distro, but I will try to > compile a working gcc version to compile both, flashtool and the image > without any warnings Ah, maybe crosstool is of interest for you. It allows you to build different combinations of gcc, binutils and libc very easily. Just google for it. > Currently I'm wondering about the differences in gcc. For flashtool I > get warnings for comparisons between signed and unsigned only, without > the -Werror Flag and the gcc 3.3 version. Why isn't gcc backwards > compatible? In this case removing -Werror should be fine. A gdb run of the segmentation fault would be very interesting. I don't have an 8.2 machine here anymore, unfortunately. gcc has never been without such side effects, and using stuff like -Werror might give safety on a couple of systems, but also introduces compilation problems on others. Is your gcc 3.3 a prerelease? (ie. as shipped with SUSE a couple of times) those prereleases often handle code better than the final releases, but they might have warnings enabled that never occur again in any later version. > Now I have the tool compiled with gcc 2.96 and it works, but compiling > the image with gcc 3.3 results in the same warnings and a few warnings > more. It could be, that the image won't work :( Does the segfault you saw happen with the 2.96 binary as well? What did you do to get around it? > @Stefan > I think i can mail to in german, is it so ?? Indeed. But please make sure to leave the mailing list off the senders list in german mailings. ;-) Regards, Stefan -- LinuxBIOS mailing list LinuxBIOS@openbios.org http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
