From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 20 11:15:03 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA01376 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:15:03 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA01369 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:15:01 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA26131; Tue, 20 Jun 95 12:07:49 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9506201807.AA26131@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: gcc 2.7.0 To: charnier@lirmm.fr (Philippe Charnier) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 12:07:48 MDT Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199506201639.SAA16386@lirmm.lirmm.fr> from "Philippe Charnier" at Jun 20, 95 06:39:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > JustFYI: I compiled 2.7.0 (i386--freebsd) and didn't see problem > during this stage, then I made a new kernel using this compiler and > only found warnings (comparison between signed and unsigned) many > times. > > When trying to make a C++ project, I got an error from the assembler, > something like ``unknown pseudo instruction: .weak''. > > According to some people, I think that 2.7.0 should be part of FreeBSD > as soon as possible, so that specific changes could be incorporated in > the next gcc release. Maybe an intermediate stage in the port area > would be nice for fixing some parts of the tree (e.g. because of the > new ``for'' semantic) without breaking current. Just out of curiousity, what is the status of the Ada and FORTRAN compilers, both of which must use parts of the C compiler to do their thing? Are they compatible with 2.7.0 yet? BTW. A full rebuild of the 2.7.0 sources on SunOS 4.1.3 (as in their example in the INSTALL (did *not* result in a .weak complaint). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.