This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
as i mentioned recently, i've test built a couple x86-64 toolchains against the SVN repository that are a bit newer than any listed in dan's results matrix. while that matrix lists a successful build with gcc-4.0.2 glibc-2.3.6 binutils-2.16.1 i've done successful builds with gcc-4.0.3 and gcc-4.0.4 (after creating the appropriate patch dirs). at the moment, i'm trying the following: gcc-4.0.4 glibc-2.3.6 binutils-2.17 if that works, that will probably be my canonical build for what i'm doing until i have time to mess with gcc-4.1.x. as for the general questions, is there any reason not to start testing builds with binutils-2.17? the entire result matrix only goes as high as binutils-2.16.1, even though binutils-2.17 has been out since june of 2006. same thing with gdb-6.6 instead of gdb-6.5, although gdb-6.6 has been out only since dec of 2006. it seems that, at some point, it's probably a policy decision of some kind to move up to the latest release of the software components for any newer build testing. just my $0.02. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |