From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:02:50 +0000 From: Icarus Sparry Message-ID: <47be0937$0$36409$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 References: <6878c6ec53332c20fd6f7c51a164cf33@proxima.alt.za> Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC etc. Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5ea75794-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:11 +0000, lucio wrote: > I have made small progress getting dhog's GCC to compile itself. > Briefly, I needed a "mv" that did not barf on a "-f" option, a copy of > "head" I stole from NetBSD and a fresh version of "gmake". >=20 > I used APE, a "mkfile" and the 3.81 sources of gmake to produce > "/386/bin/gnu/make" which is an improvement on the version in the > "gnubin" archives. >=20 > I'm not sure whether anyone would actually want the "gmake" at this > stage, or later when the exercise is more advanced. If you do, let me > know, I'll dump it on sources. As someone who has submitted bug reports against gmake, little things=20 like "here is a vaild makefile that causes gmake to go into an infinite=20 loop using 100% of one CPU", I strongly suggest getting the source from=20 CVS. I have tried to pursuade the maintainer that he should push out a=20 new release to fix this bug, but he doesn't see it as important enough. When I first submitted the bug, with an example Makefile it was against=20 3.80. Then gmake just built too much. The same Makefile against 3.81=20 causes the loop. Pity about the lack of regression testing.