Re: problem making swarm2.1.1 (redhat 6.0) -- the gcc patch

[Rick Riolo]

ok, i have heatbugs 2.1.1 running:  thanks for the help, marcus and paul.

I do have the link time warnings, as predicted.

Marcus, does this note from you imply if i just install the right
binutils, i don't need to patch gcc:

> RLR> Do I still need it with gcc 2.95.2 ?
> 
> Otherwise, depending on the binutils you have, you may get linker
> warnings.

If so, what version of binutils is the right one
to go with gcc 2.95.2 ?
I see a bunch at ftp://ftp.varesearch.com/pub/support/hjl/binutils/
for instance:

  binutils-2.10.0.12-1.i386.rpm        1758 Kb    Sun Jul  9 16:33:00 2000 
  binutils-2.10.0.18-1.i386.rpm        1774 Kb    Thu Jul 20 21:41:00 2000 

and some earlier ones.

of course, if i need to do the gcc patch, i need to do the patch,
and that's what i'll do.

thanks.
 - r

Rick Riolo                           address@hidden
Center for Study of Complex Systems (CSCS)
4477 Randall Lab                
University of Michigan         Ann Arbor MI 48109-1120
Phone: 734 763 3323                  Fax: 734 763 9267
http://www.pscs.umich.edu/PEOPLE/rlr-home.html

On 21 Jul 2000, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> Date: 21 Jul 2000 09:16:07 -0700
> From: Marcus G. Daniels <address@hidden>
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: problem making swarm2.1.1 (redhat 6.0) -- the gcc patch
> 
> >>>>> "RLR" == Rick Riolo <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> RLR> Do I still need it with gcc 2.95.2 ?
> 
> Otherwise, depending on the binutils you have, you may get linker
> warnings.
> 
> RLR> (If so, any chance you can get them to include it in some future
> RLR> version of gcc?)
> 
> Basically, I don't want to get sucked-in to Objective C compiler
> maintenance.  The fix accomodates a rather fragile approach to
> getting the linker to pull-in classes using named references by providing
> actual referents for the references.
> 
> If I get the fix installed, then I'll be reinforcing a design I don't
> like (and probably one other people don't either).  I believe this
> will result in questions from unhappy hackers.  I don't want questions
> and I don't want unhappy hackers.
> 
> As I see it, the people in the Swarm community that care are the
> people building from source.  However, Build From Source folks will
> have GCC 2.95.2 and a CVS checkout sitting on their fastest hard drive
> at all times, and can just have the patch applied.  Everybody else
> can and should use binaries.
> 
> That being said, if someone else feels like reading the patch and
> submitting it to the GCC maintainers, please don't let me stop you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                   ==================================
>    Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
>    to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
>    [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
>    with "help" in the body of the message.
> 
> 



                  ==================================
   Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
   to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
   [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
   with "help" in the body of the message.