Re: gcc 2.7.2.3 question

["Petr Stehlik" <pstehlik@zln.cz>]

>Ok guys I am going crazy.

I'd like to tell you something:

there are three recent GCC versions: GCC 2.7.2 and 2.7.2.2, both done by
Frank Naumann. Then there's GCC 2.7.2.3 done by Christian.

The difference: Frank did the GCC as native MiNT compiler, with LFN, with
normal (libc.a) lib names etc. Chris, OTOH, did his GCC so it can run under
TOS (8+3 filenames, c.olb libraries, no chmod etc) and also under MiNT.
That's why it's perhaps hard to get 2.7.2.3 working smoothly under MiNT...

If you want to get clean MiNT compiler, get the 2.7.2 or 2.7.2.2

>3) the installation is MORE than suspicious. why don't we have 1 way
>to install gcc? is it that hard to agree with each others?
>I mean generally libs in /usr/lib not in /usr/local/lib

as for the /usr/local stuff, it was proposed by GNU or Linux SFS, I'm not
sure, since GCC 2.6.3

>Include in /usr/include  and for g++ /usr/include/g++
>and all the bin would be sym links from wherever to /bin.
>btw someone said, and you also have to link "such"(don't remember the
>name) program to /bin AND /usr/bin  but as far as I know, our /bin and
>/usr/bin are the same and are already sym.linked.

simply delete all gcc related files from /usr/bin and then you don't have to
link local/bin anywhere. Alternatively, put /usr/local in front of /usr in
your PATH

>Well guys very confusing for such an operation, No one knows what this
>"specs" actually really does?

I *guess* it's a configuration file which was used for building that
compiler. I think that because I tried to edit it but nothing changed

>Also what is this story about .olb and .a files for libs??
>Why don't we stay consistent?

it's a TOS versus MiNT - see above

Petr