This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: HP/UX 10.20 vanilla <-> gcc-2.95.2
- To: N8TM at aol dot com
- Subject: Re: HP/UX 10.20 vanilla <-> gcc-2.95.2
- From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at mira dot isdn dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 22:47:34 +0200
- CC: philipp at buehler dot de, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, hpux at connect dot org dot uk
- References: <0.5a1a2bbf.254ca6a7@aol.com>
> In fact, that's one of the alternatives I proposed; remove libl so that
> binutils build doesn't take wrong branches based on the belief that lex is
> available. Yes, it will build OK if libl is removed, but not if it is
> configured for lex to be present when it is not.
I thought we were talking about building GCC; how is building binutils
relevant, here? I still don't see why any trickery with lex (be it
installing flex, or removing libl) is necessary to build gcc.
Martin