This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Officially recommended gcc version?
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Officially recommended gcc version?
- From: Grant Edwards <grante at visi dot com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:56:11 -0500
- Cc: ecos-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <20010811123745.A21776@visi.com> <3B76A132.E4C5E8AF@redhat.com>
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> > What's the officially recommended gcc version for building
> > eCos?
>
> "Official" is what you make of it. There's no "official"
> support, so really you can do what you want - it's just we do
> know about some things that don't work.
That's official enough for me...
> > The web page at
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/tools/linux-arm-elf.html shows
> > the first option (2.95.2 + patch).
>
> The patch will be needed on some targets even if you used the
> 2.95.3 code base - it includes a few things that were not
> suitable for 2.95.3. However, the patch won't apply to 2.95.3
> cleanly :-|. I never reworked it for 2.95.3 because 3.0 was so
> close and I didn't want to retest a whole bunch of targets.
> Unless you are hitting a definite obstacle, stick with the
> first option.
That's what I was tentatively planning unless somebody knew of
a reason not to. That's now the "official" plan. :)
[Thanks for the update on 3.0 progress.]
--
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com