On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Andris Pavenis wrote:
I see 2 problems with update to gpc-20010409:
- #ifdef GPC_2_95_3 in gpc.c is placed before any #include statement (so it's undefined). Moving it after #include statements fixes the problem
Oh yes. #-) I put them before in case any include would need MKTEMP_EACH_FILE, but III forgot that GCC_2_95_3 is only set in an include. Will fix this.
It's not used in include files AFAIK.
- Testing for exactly 2.95.3 in make-lang.in is not correct. Perhaps we should test for 2.95.[3-9] as current version in GCC_2_95 branch is already 2.95.3
My typo: in current CVS version of gcc_2_95 branch version is 2.95.4
OK -- though there may be other problems with new versions, and we'll have to care about them when the new versions are there, doing this change already now probably won't hurt. -- BTW, what about 2.96 (I think Red Hat released such a version) and 2.97 (the current development version?). Do they also have cpp0 or not yet? I must admit I'm quite confused about all these GCC/EGCS versions and I've given up trying to understand them...
For comment about gcc-2.96 see http://gcc.gnu.org. It is not an official FSF release. Perhaps one should support gcc-3.0 when it will come out. Current development branch has now version 3.1 (for example gcc 3.1 20010411 (experimental)). gcc-3_0-branch have version 3.0 (prerelease).
There seems not too big problems to build current CVS version of gcc-3.0 prerelease under Linux (at least as I can see from my nightly builds: update of sources from CVS and bootstrapping and running tests). My attempts to build it for DJGPP was unsuccesfull after March 20 (I didn't want to mess with native build with DJGPP so I used Linux to build native compiler for DJGPP). For gcc-3.0 prerelease the preprocessor name is cpp0
Andris