On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 15:50, Wookey wrote:
> On Thu 14 Mar, Jamey Hicks wrote:
> > David McNab wrote:
> > [...]
> > I propose we aim for gcc 3.x, for suitably stable value of x.
>
> I leave this for phil to pronounce upon - is gcc 3 ready for the big time for
> arm cross-compiling? If it is then I agree, otherwise 2.95 needs to be used a
> bit longer - and there may be good reasons for having both around for a
> bit...
Just adding my two cents: My experience with GCC 3.x is that a fairly
significant amount of programs still won't compile under it and I've
been never able to finish a crosscompiler build (x86->ARM) using GCC
3.0.1 or 3.0.2 (haven't tried the newers yet). 2.95.3 didn't have any
problems building.
Regards,
Erik Smit
Received on Thu Mar 14 15:16:49 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 04 2004 - 08:45:19 EDT