Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Philipp Thomas]

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:57:56 -0700, Igor Markov <imarkov@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

>   Finally, if you guys are stressed out and don't have time, 
>   why don't you just put a disclaimer on egcs site ---- 
>   "will be done later", so that I don't really plan on using gcc
>   (aftering getting burnt by expecting a release in the first half
>    of July).

Ok, you asked for it, so better get your asbestos underwear.

Are you trying to troll or are you really such an ignorant fool. There will be
no "will be done later" because IT IS NOT OUR JOB, period. And about getting
burnt: could it be that you somehow missed that this is volunteer work ? So
did you help us in reaching that *tentative* goal by contributing ? No ? Then
shut up and try growing up.

As has been told to you, we only do source releases. Isn't that clear enough ?
It's the job of the *vendor* of the distribution you use to supply you with
the binary rpm, not the gcc team.

So go complaining to RedHat, but you'd better be prepared for unpleasant
answers from them because you seem to have missed the disclaimer for stuff in
the contrib directory, namely that everything there is *not* official RedHat
stuff and you use it at your own risk. You did so, it broke, you get to keep
the pieces.

If you don't know how to compile all the necessary packages, wait for the
official announcement from the vendor of your choice. But STOP whining and
blaming others because YOU didn't have a clue and stop insulting those of us
that invested their free time to make gcc 2.95 happen.

Try to get the clue you very obviously don't have, try to listen to what
people tell you, and no, reading "Linux-Hacker in 24 hours" is not sufficient.



Philipp

-- 
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers
and deluge the hobby market with good software.
                                            -- Bill Gates, 1976