Re: Status of gcc-2.95-3 release port

[Marc Espie <espie_(_at_)_schutzenberger_(_dot_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr>]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 06:12:52PM +0300, Heikki Korpela wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Marc Espie wrote:
> 
> > What is in source is gcc 2.95.3-test3. I haven't updated to test5 yet.
> 
> Is there any way to check the version of this sort
> of foreign software from the source tree?

Do a cvs log on the egcs/ files. This is a `clean' area, with a vendor
branch. You'll see the successive updates, and the differences that were
necessary to coerce gcc into our Makefile.bsd-wrapper build format.

Plus, you'll see a few diffs that are not in 2.95.3 yet: 2.95.3 is a
bug-fix release, and there is a bit of development going on in OpenBSD
proper, and a few patches that have been deemed stable enough to go in
(like a lookup change that is worth 10% compilation speed on all risc
machines, or a stack peephole that allows i386 kernels to fit on the
floppy, and which was mandatory for 2.95 to be accepted).

Also, we do try to minimize rebuild, hence libiberty is shared between
binutils and egcs, to the extent that we have a mutant version of libiberty
that is mostly binutils 2.10, except for a few gcc-specific changes that
won't be verified until we switch to 3.0...


> > Just update src/gnu/egcs to current and rebuild the libraries,
> > then the compiler.
> > Twice.
> 
> Yes, I've done this (I assume that libraries refer to libc); what
> I was trying to do was apply the old Makefiles to the release.
> Stupid of me, agreed, but I just had to give it a shot.

Nope. the egcs/lib stuff.
I've assume you're starting from 2.8. If you are on an older box, you'd
better update to 2.8 first, then update gcc.