Re: gcc 2.7.2.3 question

[Katherine L Ellis <kellis@primenet.com>]

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Petr Stehlik wrote:

>>Ok guys I am going crazy.
>
>I'd like to tell you something:
>
>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...
ohhhhhhh ok, I got it now. THANKS!, at least a clean sharp answer.

>
>If you want to get clean MiNT compiler, get the 2.7.2 or 2.7.2.2
Well now that I have 2.7.2.3, no way to modify it for mint running
perfect? that's at the compilation time that gcc has been modified for
TOS?, if Yes I guess I will have to downgrade.

>
>>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
Well DO WE HAVE SHARED LIBS? that might be a reason why we don't need
to use /usr/local/lib  These shuold only contain the extra files for
some application, such as irc, lynx etc. 


>
>>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
:) My $PATH is pretty much complete :)

>>Also what is this story about .olb and .a files for libs??
>>Why don't we stay consistent?
oh ok. got it. btw WHY .olb? no apparent reason for changing .a into
.olb, these are the same lib, and the .olb or .a, well it doesn't make
it any longer or shorter, I mean a tos user with only 8+3 can
perfectly use libxxx.a, no? am I missing something?

>
>it's a TOS versus MiNT - see above
Ok got it :) thanks for clarifying this, BTW just by curiosity, How
many SINGLETOS users are really into GCC?

Also, are the magic users able to use gcc (TOS version)?
OR can they also use the gcc(MINT) if they use the vfat partition?
What's the difference between TOS and mint version anyway except the
longfilename if EVER used?
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
Email:Kellis@primenet.com
Web http://www.primenet.com/~kellis/
________________________________________________________________________________