[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gcc question

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Katherine L Ellis wrote:

> >If you want to get clean MiNT compiler, get the 2.7.2 or
> Well now that I have, 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.

But it *does* run perfectly under MiNT! If you install it on a
MinixFS-partition and *don't* set the GNULIB environment-variable none
of Chris' TOS-FS patches are active. AFAIK these are the same patches
that was present in 2.5.8. I don't mind having a few Kb inactive code
on my disk either, at least not so much that I'd rather downgrade :-)

> 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. 

Even if we don't have shared libs we should use the same
directory-structure as those that has. I wouldn't be surprised if we
get shared libs either, especially not when Fenix gets released. 

> Ok got it :) thanks for clarifying this, BTW just by curiosity, How
> many SINGLETOS users are really into GCC?

There are some things that are done simply because they *can* be done

> Also, are the magic users able to use gcc (TOS version)?

Yes, and I guess that's why Chris did this version. MagiC does support
long filenames, but chmod/chown/etc doesn't make sense with MagiC, nor
does unix-style paths. That's why a pure MiNT-version won't work with

** Jo Even Skarstein    http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**    beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5