"David O'Brien" wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 11:37:18AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
This is the scoop.
..snip..
gcc -v
Using builtin specs.
gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
..snip..
Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
What other platforms w/gcc 2.95 have you
"David O'Brien" wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 11:37:18AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
This is the scoop.
..snip..
gcc -v
Using builtin specs.
gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
..snip..
Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
What other platforms w/gcc 2.95
Amancio Hasty wrote:
I really doubt that I am the only one here that can get XFree86 3.9.xxx -curr
ent .
Nevertheless if it can help out to fix the default compiler here is the infor
mation which
you reguested.
Command Line executed to generate the output file and with the
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
GCC 2.95.2 is a *RELEASED* version. We don't use snapshots as the base
compiler. What every the problem is 4.0 will live with it unless someone
narrows down the problem more.
The latest Polygraph
XFree86 3.9.xxx was cvsup on December 24th I am sorry but this is
sufficient information to reproduce the problem.
Not if you actually want the problem solved. There's this thing
called "making it easy on the people you're demanding things of" in
order that they might have some chance of
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
XFree86 3.9.xxx was cvsup on December 24th I am sorry but this is
sufficient information to reproduce the problem.
[snip]
Insisting that someone cvsup the entire X source tree, as you've
clearly *already* done, hardly falls into the
Sending out an attachment of that size to a public mailing list was
hardly necessary, and the increasing stridency of your posts leading
up to this only serve to indicate that you may be heading in the truly
wrong direction with all this and seriously need to rethink your
strategy before you do
:
: FreeBSD -current was last cvsup on my system on Dec 23 18:59.
:
: XFree86 3.9.xxx was cvsup on December 24th I am sorry but this is
: sufficient information to reproduce the problem.
:
:No, it is not, because we can't *get* XFree86 3.9.xxx -current, so we
:cannot reproduce it, can we?
:
Sending out an attachment of that size to a public mailing list was
hardly necessary, and the increasing stridency of your posts leading
up to this only serve to indicate that you may be heading in the truly
wrong direction with all this and seriously need to rethink your
strategy before you
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
!
!Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
!
!gcc -c bug.c
!
Ouch! This looks an awful lot like the last report with `GCC' and
`problem' in the subject. As Matt just mentionned one or two posts ago,
and as I observed in the last
Hi,
We just have a buggy version of gcc and it appears that
the register allocator is the main problematic area.
This is not really a problem for me because what I first
try out is a newer version of gcc if I can not get
around the compile problem. At any rate remember
that at least my
On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 02:40:46AM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
In file included from include/PortMgr.h:29,
from Connection.cc:33:
include/LevelStat.h:55: invalid type `const char[1]' for default argument
to `const String '
..snip..
The "offending" code looks like this:
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 11:37:18AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
This is the scoop.
..snip..
gcc -v
Using builtin specs.
gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
..snip..
Without -O or -O2 the program compiles okay.
What other platforms w/gcc 2.95 have you tried to build this X11 version
on?
3. Raise this issue with Cygnus.
Not really Cygnus is the wrong organization to raise this issue .
As someone else pointed out the gcc-devel port does not exhibit the bug
which I posted.
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
3. Raise this issue with Cygnus.
Not really Cygnus is the wrong organization to raise this issue .
Could you *please* explain why???
Gcc 2.96 will not be out before 4.0. So Gcc 2.95.x is what is going into
4.0. Now should a Gcc 2.95.3 were to come out, then we'd get a new
compiler for
On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 02:21:48PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
...the idea was to continue the make process further along to where
another source file that also included LevelStat.h got compiled, to
check whether it bombs as well - it didn't.
``make -k'' might have been a better choice as you
Gcc 2.96 will not be out before 4.0. So Gcc 2.95.x is what is going into
4.0. Now should a Gcc 2.95.3 were to come out, then we'd get a new
compiler for 4.0.
Lets think about this in FreeBSD terms -- 4.0 does not have some problem
that 3.4-R does. However it wasn't known that 3.4-R had
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 07:43:07PM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
Gcc 2.96 will not be out before 4.0. So Gcc 2.95.x is what is going into
4.0. Now should a Gcc 2.95.3 were to come out, then we'd get a new
compiler for 4.0.
Lets think about this in FreeBSD terms -- 4.0 does not have some
Hi David,
Last time, the problem does not exist with the gcc-devel port
which directly implies that the problem has been fixed so I see
no point on reporting the bug to Cygnus. I can in the future
report the bug to Cygnus if the bug has not been fixed
in a subsequent snapshot.
I will play
Actually, that's one of the newest versions of gcc.
Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
GCC 2.95.2 is a *RELEASED* version. We don't use snapshots as the base
compiler. What every the problem is 4.0 will live with it unless someone
narrows down the problem more.
--
-- David
On Sun, Dec 26, 1999 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
I get similar errors trying to compile aview from ports. I just
updated my ports tree, so that can't be the problem. See the
attached make.log. There's something about not allowing access
to the cx register.
...
sstring.h:493:
Thats nice . Now we have a compiler which fails to build X.
Actually, that's one of the newest versions of gcc.
Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
GCC 2.95.2 is a *RELEASED* version. We don't use snapshots as the base
compiler. What every the problem is 4.0 will live with
Thats nice . Now we have a compiler which fails to build X.
This seems like hyperbole. I'm able to build X just fine with the
-current compiler, so to directly imply that we can't do so flies in
the face of common sense and experience.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
I am running FreeBSD -current and XFree86 3.9xxx current.
Thats nice . Now we have a compiler which fails to build X.
This seems like hyperbole. I'm
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
I am running FreeBSD -current and XFree86 3.9xxx current.
Typically this empty space would contain
The details were previously posted by .
Good Nite
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
The details were previously posted by .
Good Nite
Whatever ate the details on your previous post seems to be at it again.
--
- bill fumerola - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - BF1560 - computer horizons corp -
- ph:(800) 252-2421 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
The details were previously posted by .
Good Nite
Whatever ate the details on your previous post seems to be at it again.
Here is a copy of my mail post which I received from the -current mail list
that is my post went out intact.
Amancio Hasty wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
The details were previously posted by .
Good Nite
Whatever ate the details on your previous post seems to be at it again.
Here is a copy of my mail post which I received from the -current mail list
Look I stated previously and only a few hours ago:
---
Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
I am running FreeBSD -current and XFree86 3.9xxx
Amancio Hasty wrote:
Look I stated previously and only a few hours ago:
---
Yes, I can rightfully claim that you cannot build XFree86 3.9 xxx dated
December 24 with the default gcc compiler on FreeBSD -current.
I am running FreeBSD
Amancio Hasty wrote:
While trying to compile the latest version of XFree86 I found the following
compiler bug.
{root} gcc -v
Using builtin specs.
gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
I assume that this an old version of gcc...
Actually, that's one of the newest versions of gcc.
Actually, that's one of the newest versions of gcc.
Perhaps a later snapshot of gcc will work .
attached make.log. There's something about not allowing access
to the cx register.
I am not into hacking gcc's register allocator 8)
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe:
33 matches
Mail list logo
