From: Andrew <andnews AT ihug DOT com DOT oz DOT au>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: SIGILL 386 (illegal opcode)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 19:03:38 +1000
Organization: ECLiPSE
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <8oc4bvoen8kno04nqk7tcock331a1un455@4ax.com>
References: <b8oqgi$1s2b$1 AT hq DOT mark-itt DOT ru> <3eb08a5a$0$79355$cc7c7865 AT news DOT luth DOT se> <b8qpgj$2tb4$1 AT hq DOT mark-itt DOT ru> <rc02bvkd2ubsau4hftukvbq7t6lt12d9ee AT 4ax DOT com> <b8r5p1$p3$1 AT hq DOT mark-itt DOT ru>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p190-tnt8.syd.ihug.com.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1051866222 14901 203.173.147.190 (2 May 2003 09:03:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT ihug DOT co DOT nz
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 09:03:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

..SNIP..
>I don't need to run GCC on 386 PC. I just need to run only programs which are
>compiled  by GCC on 386. Should I still need to rebuild GCC and binutils for target i386?
If what you originally reported is correct then you will need to
re-build GCC. As indicated I do not know if you do or do not need to
re-build binutils, but you may.
>And, if so which compiler should I use?
You had indicated that you had moved to GCC 3.2.2. It is up to you,
but GCC 3.2.2 is more compliant with the latest C++ standard than
2.9.5.3, but 2.9.5.3 will build smaller exes.

If you do go for GCC 2.9.5.3 then downlaod the GCC2953S.ZIP (or
similar name) and follw the readme.djgpp that comes with it.


Andrew