From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17151 invoked by uid 1002); 16 May 2003 14:20:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 26473 invoked from network); 16 May 2003 14:20:29 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:20:25 +0200 From: Spider To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20030516162025.7090a0ef.spider@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1053086453.22966.10.camel@wolf.codewordt.co.uk> References: <20030516022031.57157e45.spider@gentoo.org> <1053086453.22966.10.camel@wolf.codewordt.co.uk> Organization: Chaotic X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="=.Q(RNT7g9k6vJ?O" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3 X-Archives-Salt: 7d59afa4-213c-4932-9b34-0a6d71ba06ea X-Archives-Hash: 7729ac4667078c4a56847f50dd5eecba --=.Q(RNT7g9k6vJ?O Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin quote On 16 May 2003 13:00:53 +0100 Dhruba Bandopadhyay 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 --=.Q(RNT7g9k6vJ?O Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+xPOrZS9CZTi033kRAvs8AKChvf1RzWPQNT5TVrzojw3jkuFzDACfZ0+y /5+UvCQ9oMxwhEpOrJ73KHk= =Oibq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.Q(RNT7g9k6vJ?O--