Gcc-4.1

Hello World! I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how painless it was. Aspell-0.60.4 needed a sed sed -i 's,NroffFilter::process_char ,process_char ,' \ modules/filter/nroff.cpp And so did OpenSP-1.5.1 (along with the usual patches) sed -i

Re: Gcc-4.1

Andrew Benton wrote: But that's all that went wrong in BLFS. The main bustage was in LFS. Groff-1.18.1.1 wouldn't compile with gcc-4.1 and I've not (yet) found a fix, so I used groff-1.19.2 instead (without the internationalisation support patch). I'm not sure what to do about that yet.

Re: Gcc-4.1

Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 09:49 CST: I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how painless it was. Good to hear. I'm hoping that LFS will cut a test branch soon so I can update GNOME using the (what should be the next version of LFS). But until I'm

Re: Gcc-4.1

On 4/17/06, Andrew Benton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello World! I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how painless it was. Great to hear. What glibc version were you using? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ:

Re: Gcc-4.1

On 4/17/06, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Benton wrote: But that's all that went wrong in BLFS. The main bustage was in LFS. Groff-1.18.1.1 wouldn't compile with gcc-4.1 and I've not (yet) found a fix, so I used groff-1.19.2 instead (without the internationalisation

Re: Gcc-4.1

Andrew Benton wrote: Hello World! I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how painless it was. Aspell-0.60.4 needed a sed sed -i 's,NroffFilter::process_char ,process_char ,' \ modules/filter/nroff.cpp And so did OpenSP-1.5.1 (along with the usual patches)

Re: Gcc-4.1

Hmm. Well, my knowledge of C++ isn't strong enough to say that's the right idea or not. However, fedora is using the same patch, so it seems safe: seem to be an extra qualification error. This now fail an gcc 4.1 as it is more strict on syntax. I correct lot of program is this way no pb

Re: Gcc-4.1

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: There was a solution posted to lfs-dev: http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-March/056141.html Thanks, that worked great. I probably could have worked that out for myself if I'd taken five minutes to think about it. That's another

Re: Gcc-4.1

Randy McMurchy wrote: Good to hear. I'm hoping that LFS will cut a test branch soon so I can update GNOME using the (what should be the next version of LFS). But until I'm certain that trunk won't move to a new GCC or Glibc before cutting the test branch, I really don't want to do a lot of

Re: Gcc-4.1

Dan Nicholson wrote: Great to hear. What glibc version were you using? glibc-2.4. A cvs pull from the nineteenth of march. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: Gcc-4.1

Bruce Dubbs wrote: This is great news Andy. If you would be so kind, please put these findings in the appropriate wiki pages so other users can know what changes are needed. Done. The OpenSP-1.5.1 fix may not be needed. Hopefully OpenSP-1.5.2 will be released soon. Andy --

Re: Gcc-4.1

Andrew Benton wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: Great to hear. What glibc version were you using? glibc-2.4. A cvs pull from the nineteenth of march. If you use the official glibc-2.4 release tarball, when you untar glibc-libidn-2.4 folder, make sure you rename it libidn (so that the folder

Re: Gcc-4.1

Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Yes, that's the current plan. We're trying to finish up the list of tickets slated for 6.2 so we can branch for testing. Updated toolchain for trunk will follow. Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk

Re: Gcc-4.1

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already obsolete?

Re: Gcc-4.1

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already obsolete?

Re: Gcc-4.1

Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 13:15 CST: Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already obsolete? This issue

Re: Gcc-4.1

El Lunes, 17 de Abril de 2006 20:15, Andrew Benton escribió: Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already obsolete? Due that

Re: Gcc-4.1

Randy McMurchy wrote: Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 13:15 CST: Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already

Re: Gcc-4.1

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already obsolete? You

Re: Gcc-4.1

Archaic wrote: On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already

gcc-4.1 warning

I'm not a programmer, so I cannot confirm or deny this guy's concern. I really only provide this link in curiosity if this may be related to the mysql testsuite failures. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431184/30/0/threaded -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your

Re: gcc-4.1 warning

On 4/17/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not a programmer, so I cannot confirm or deny this guy's concern. I really only provide this link in curiosity if this may be related to the mysql testsuite failures. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431184/30/0/threaded This is

Re: gcc-4.1 warning

On 4/17/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763 Only mainline and 4_1 branch received the fix. It doesn't seem to indicate that 4.0 is affected, so I don't know if this is your mysql bug. Funny. The other duplicate of that bug was filed

Re: gcc-4.1 warning

Dan Nicholson wrote: On 4/17/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763 Only mainline and 4_1 branch received the fix. It doesn't seem to indicate that 4.0 is affected, so I don't know if this is your mysql bug. Funny. The other

Youngest dishy Girls fuckeed anallly!

Russiian fine Ladies here doing elegant bloowjob. http://legacylearningacademy.info/zgangtee/?iYeR-gfO.YbWPMeSVXRhSjQhc,VSd D..e.I.e.t.e http://legacylearningacademy.info -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: