From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 22 08:58:20 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB9E106564A for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:58:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537AF8FC0A for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:58:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF133916A; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:26:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix, from userid 1203) id BC19410055; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:26:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B7510054; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:26:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:26:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Thomas Hummel In-Reply-To: <20080820184014.GA47095@parmesan.sis.pasteur.fr> Message-ID: References: <20080820184014.GA47095@parmesan.sis.pasteur.fr> User-Agent: Alpine 1.99 (LSU 1142 2008-08-13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc34 doesn't build on 7.0-STABLE/amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:58:20 -0000 On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Thomas Hummel wrote: > for some long time now, gcc34 doesn't build on FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE > (GENERIC kernel) amd64 : This is the first and only report on this I have ever seen, including the (successful) builds on the FreeBSD build cluster. FreeBSD versions as old as this version of GCC are out of support, and I really recommend to use more up-to-date versions of GCC. Still, I tried to look into this but failed to find anything. I guess the question is whether you do also see this with the latest -STABLE or 7.0-RELEASE. If not, I'd venture it must be some problem in -STABLE. Otherwise, likely something peculiar to your environment? Gerald