This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete
On Mar 20, 2001, Markus Werle <markus@lufmech.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> a) Please tell me which version of binutils will not conflict with
> gcc-2.95.3
It's very unlikely that you'll find some version of binutils whose
files in common with gcc 2.95.3 are identical.
> and how I can reach my goal: a working, rather stable version of
> gcc/binutils.
> (btw.: what is the stage of the ELF c++-compiler on hpux-11.0?)
GCC 2.95.3 won't support HPUX-11.0, just like 2.95.2. Only 3.0 will.
> b) Please remove misleading documentation!!! Nothing worse than that.
Patches are always welcome. Now that you have figured out what
doesn't work, please post patches to adjust the docs.
> c) release gcc-2.95.3-with-binutils.tar.bz, soon.
Feel free to create such a tar.bz and put it up for ftp at your own
site. If your site gets overloaded, let us know, so as to convince us
that there is as much a demand as you claim for such a joint tarball.
Anyway, the fact you want GCC and binutils to be packaged together
won't make them have synchronized release schedules. They're separate
projects, that can be built alongside for convenience, when you figure
out how to do it, but in general, you may be better off building them
separately, to avoid the very conflicts you're complaining about.
> Or see the hpux stuff: configuring for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00 does NOT
> lead to a 64 bit compiler
AFAIK, with GCC 3.0, it will. But GCC 2.95.3 still doesn't support
64-bit HPUX. It's just a minor bug-fix release based on 2.95.2.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me