Gcc-4.1

2006-04-17 Thread Andrew Benton
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 's

Re: Gcc-4.1

2006-04-17 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
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

2006-04-17 Thread Randy McMurchy
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

2006-04-17 Thread Dan Nicholson
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: http

Re: Gcc-4.1

2006-04-17 Thread Dan Nicholson
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

2006-04-17 Thread Bruce Dubbs
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

2006-04-17 Thread EdB
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

2006-04-17 Thread Andrew Benton
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

2006-04-17 Thread Andrew Benton
of testing. I don't think Gnome has any problem with gcc-4.1 or glibc-2.4. My gnome build script ran from start to finish with no errors. Everything seems to be working fine (though I've not had time to use everything). Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http

Re: Gcc-4.1

2006-04-17 Thread Andrew Benton
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

2006-04-17 Thread Andrew Benton
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

2006-04-17 Thread Andrew Benton
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

2006-04-17 Thread Andrew Benton
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

2006-04-17 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
release that, get it out the door, then we put gcc-4.1 and glibc-2.4 in trunk and start testing that. People who want the latest and greatest can build trunk. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above

Re: Gcc-4.1

2006-04-17 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
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

2006-04-17 Thread Randy McMurchy
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

2006-04-17 Thread M.Canales.es
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

2006-04-17 Thread Bruce Dubbs
have to update both trunk and the branch, but we don't want to confuse things either by not having a separate branch when LFS trunk goes to gcc-4.1/glibc-new. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See

Re: Gcc-4.1

2006-04-17 Thread Archaic
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

2006-04-17 Thread Richard A Downing FBCS CITP
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

2006-04-17 Thread Archaic
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

2006-04-17 Thread Dan Nicholson
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

2006-04-17 Thread Dan Nicholson
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

2006-04-17 Thread Joe Ciccone
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