This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: Ralf Corsepius <ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org>
- Cc: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>, GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 03:11:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- References: <17009.2368.986169.753001@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <1116291223.8237.766.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200505170259.37615.stevenb@suse.de>
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 02:59, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 May 2005 02:53, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 00:10 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > On Monday 16 May 2005 23:43, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 10:42 -0400, Peter Barada wrote:
> > > > > Until package maintainers take cross-compilation *seriously*, I
> > > > > have no choice but to do native compilation of a large hunk of the
> > > > > packages on eval boards that can literally takes *DAYS* to build.
> > > >
> > > > The most amazing fact to me is: Not even GCC seems to take cross-
> > > > compilation seriously :(
> > >
> > > BS. Even the large disto builders do cross compilations a lot.
> >
> > So I suppose you have these general crossbuilding PRs fixed in your
> > sources:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21143
>
> No, I just don't build gfortran as a cross. There are many reasons
> why this is a bad idea anyway.
>
> Oh, and how helpful of you to post that patch to gcc-patches@ too...
> NOT!
Ah, I see you did post it to gcc-patches@, but not to fortran@, which
is a requirement for gfortran patches -- and the reason why nobody
has noticed the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02287.html
The patch is OK too.
Gr.
Steven