Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[Spider <spider@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --]

begin  quote
On 16 May 2003 13:00:53 +0100
Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@codewordt.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> There is an ebuild for it on bugzilla and one here and some on forums
> too.  Have you used any of these as a definitive base or is this a new
> creation?

Neither, I wanted a go at it again (I haven't been messing with gcc
since 3.1 days)  so I started from last known working 3.2.3 and went on.
 
> Also, is there any sign of this being entered into hardmasked or
> testig state on portage?

I'm not the maintainer of gcc, so I shall leave that up to Azarah to
decide, let him distill the different builds along with his own
experience to see what goes.   

> 
> I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of
> pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will
> sort them out.

It may, so far it appears some old c++ code will barf though. not sure
about glibc and kernel issues either. 

> 
> Pardon my ignorance but have all these patches been commented out to
> prevent resultant problems or because they are no longer necessary?

Thats up to the maintainer, since I havent taken the time to go through
the patches each in turn and verify wether it is needed anymore I just
commented it out to see what happened.  I suspect a lot of them are no
longer necessary, and those that are will have to be re-diffed in a new
manner, not really an easy task.

I suspect the real build won't enter portage until propolice is up in
speed though.

//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]