Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 12:47:34 +0930 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc 2.8 Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.90.980823123707.32254A-100000@mercury> In-Reply-To: <199808221959.TAA21095@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Mike Smith wrote: > > For the record, most of the C++ stuff in the source tree is not compilable > > with egcs..from memory the other parts which I have to compile with gcc > > are due to extra compiler warnings which cause compilation to fail (i.e. > > warnings treated as errors), the lkms (egcs doesnt have -aout) and the > > biosboot stuff (exceeds maximum length). > > All of these are interesting. > > - Why won't it compile the C++ code (ie. groff)? is there a newer > groff that does build? > - Can you submit fixes to these build killers as PRs? > - Which parts of the biosboot code grow with egcs? By how much? Unfortunately I'm not a very experienced C/C++ coder; I doubt I would have the skills to identify how to fix these problems, but I'll see if I can narrow anything down. I am sure that someone else with more experience would be able to do better, though. lpr (one of the bits which fails due to warnings being treated as errors) is probably an easy target for someone who has a good understanding of C semantics and standards; there's probably some nonconformity in the source which egcs is picking up on. I can however investigate whether I can get a newer gnu groff to compile with egcs. Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.90.980823123707.32254A-100000>