Duncan == Duncan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Duncan gcc --version on most releases of gcc 3.1 generates spo,ething
Duncan along the lines of:
Duncan gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020118 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2002 Free
Duncan Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the
Duncan source
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
It seems that this could be worked around by using 'gcc -dumpversion'.
Dekel, does egcs 1.1.x support it?
And does gcc 2.95.x support it?
JMarc
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ gcc -dumpversion
2.95.3
Martin
Martin == Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin [[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ gcc -dumpversion 2.95.3
Good. What about egcs 1.1.x, now?
JMarc
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Good What about egcs 11x, now?
moz src 1495 /usr/bin/egcs -dumpversion
egcs-29166
john
--
I am a complete moron for forgetting about endianness May I be
forever marked as such
> "Duncan" == Duncan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Duncan> gcc --version on most releases of gcc 3.1 generates spo,ething
Duncan> along the lines of:
Duncan> gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020118 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2002 Free
Duncan> Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> It seems that this could be worked around by using 'gcc -dumpversion'.
>
> Dekel, does egcs 1.1.x support it?
>
> And does gcc 2.95.x support it?
>
> JMarc
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ gcc -dumpversion
2.95.3
Martin
> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ gcc -dumpversion 2.95.3
Good. What about egcs 1.1.x, now?
JMarc
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Good. What about egcs 1.1.x, now?
moz src 1495 /usr/bin/egcs -dumpversion
egcs-2.91.66
john
--
I am a complete moron for forgetting about endianness. May I be
forever marked as such.
Duncan == Duncan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Duncan gcc --dumpversion says 3.1, which is less informative than gcc
Duncan --version which says gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020225 (experimental).
Duncan Knwong exactly which version of a bleeding edge compiler you
Duncan are using is not a bad idea.
> "Duncan" == Duncan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Duncan> gcc --dumpversion says 3.1, which is less informative than gcc
Duncan> --version which says gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020225 (experimental).
Duncan> Knwong exactly which version of a bleeding edge compiler you
Duncan> are using is not a
Duncan == Duncan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Duncan the first lien is fine but the rest also gets included in the
Duncan version number and causes sed indigestion. The attatched patch
Duncan is a proposed fix
Why do you reinstantiate the AC_PROG_RANLIB call?
Note that 1.2.0cvs uses
> "Duncan" == Duncan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Duncan> the first lien is fine but the rest also gets included in the
Duncan> version number and causes sed indigestion. The attatched patch
Duncan> is a proposed fix
Why do you reinstantiate the AC_PROG_RANLIB call?
Note that
gcc --version on most releases of gcc 3.1 generates spo,ething along the lines
of:
gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020118 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or
gcc --version on most releases of gcc 3.1 generates spo,ething along the lines
of:
gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020118 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or
14 matches
Mail list logo
