On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:43:33PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote: > From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 12:38:24PM -0400, Andrew Koenig wrote: > > > > > > #0 __register_frame_info_bases (begin=0xfed50000, ob=0xfed50000, > tbase=0x0, > > > dbase=0x0) at /tmp/build1165/gcc-3.1.1/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c:83 > > > > Er, is the directory name misleading, or have you picked up > > libgcc_s.so from 3.1.1? In theory that shouldn't be a problem; in > > practice it could well be the problem. > > I'm still ploughing through several days of messages here (so this may have > been discussed already) but I have recently learned that despite the > existinence of a "-V" option, it has long been impossible to correctly > install new versions of GCC on systems with existing versions without > using --prefix= to select a unique location. Why GCC's configure doesn't > issue a warning about this when you do it wrong, I don't know. The only > clue that this is going to be a problem was buried in a FAQ somewhere as of > three months ago. I believe that this has been addressed in the current documentation -- the INSTALL file clearly states that multiple versions shouldn't be installed in the same prefix, and the -V option (which never worked properly) has been removed. Would you mind reading the docs shipped with 3.2, and reporting any remaining confusion as a bug? (note that we're not going to add a configure check as you suggest, because there are conditions where it's safe, and we don't want to make life harder for people who really do want that.) zw
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4