Mail Archives: pgcc/1999/04/24/20:18:58
Alexander Rodyukov wrote:
>
> ADAM SCHROTENBOER wrote:
> >
> > What was changed w/ 1.1.3, other than the fact that it apparrently compiles
> > now?
> >
> > Was the problem fixed, or removed???
>
> Hm, pretty stupid question... were you got it?!
> Latest on their web-site (and ftp) is 1.1.2., latest from CVS
> was (yesterday):
>
> BOLiVAR:/BUILD[$] /BUILD/usr/bin/gcc -v
> Reading specs from
> /BUILD/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/pgcc-2.93.17/specs
> gcc version pgcc-2.93.17 19990405 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental)
>
Actually, PGCC 1.1.3 _is_ available. Despite the name (and what it says on
the download page), it's still based on EGCS 1.1.2. The URL, for anybody out
there who's still trying to compile PGCC 1.1.2, is:
http://www.goof.com/pcg/data/source/egcs-1.1.2-pgcc-1.1.3.diff.gz
The news section of the main page hasn't been updated to reflect the new patch
(as of this writing), so the release kinda took me by surprise. :) However,
it compiles all the way now! Kudos to the PCG for fixing it!
In response to Adam's question, I don't know exactly what the new patch fixes
(perhaps I'll `diff -Naur` the two patches to see what's different). There
was a message previously posted here by Rodric Glaser that contained a
quick-fix patch, which restored some code to the egcs-1.1.2 default. I
suspect this was instrumental in fixing PGCC. For the message, check the
archives on delorie.com, or (if you want the message _now_) follow this URL:
http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=pgcc/1999/04/22/00:25:54
Curse those signed extensions! ;)
Cheers,
Jason
--
"Is it all journey, or is there landfall?"
--Ellison & van Vogt, "The Human Operators"
- Raw text -