Subject: Re: Building current...
To: Brian Chase <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Billquist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/04/2003 20:27:40
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Brian Chase wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Brian Chase wrote:
> > > Mine too :-| Looking at the top level Makefile, I gathered that one way
> > > to get around this problem is to rename or remove the regress dir. I'm
> > > in the middle of rebuilding with regress renamed to regress.skip. So
> > > far so good.
> > Yes, that is a possible solution. I wonder wether the stage for generating
> > the tar-balls will be happy, though?
> I'll let you know if my build gets there first :-)
I'm not building at the moment... Okay, I'll rename regress and start
> > > Are you saying that the gcc in -current is broken and/or generates
> > > broken code for the VAX? That would suck.
> > Yes. The upgrade was only a couple of days ago, and a mail was sent about
> > it.
> We could always build from the source of the day /before/ gcc was
> broken. I've been updating my sources between build crashes, so my
> sources are only about a day old (and broken, I'd gather). That doesn't
> get us to running -current, but it gets us somewhat closer.
gcc should be broken then, yes. We'll see what happens then.
> I must've missed the mail about the latest gcc on VAX. What exactly is
> broken with the newer compiler, and who is working to fix it? I can
> offer testing and troubleshooting cycles, if that's helpful.
The mail was on current users, or some such. It was a pullup of a new
version of gcc for all platforms. It was reported not to work on a few,
and vax was among them.
> > > I'm also pursuing the alternate path of getting -current running on an
> > > i386 system for cross-compiling to VAX. But that won't get around the
> > > gcc problems if I'm understanding you correctly.
> > Hmm. I actually already have that. But for this case, I would prefer to
> > build it natively. (I'm always suspicious about cross-compiles.)
> My thinking was that I'd use a cross-compiled release in order to get
> myself on track with current, since compiling it native under 1.6.1 has
> been so painful. Then I can help beat the bugs out of -current before
> the 2.0 release with native compiles. Well, that's the plan.
For you own needs you should be happy without regress.
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: email@example.com || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol