HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Re: Bison ??
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:56:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <204503@unix.cis.pitt.edu> daryl@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Daryl P Sawders) writes:
+I just got DJGPP and I was wondering if anyone could tell me where the
+primer is ??-)
+
+Seriously...  what is BISON ??

It's a North American Yak like creature.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: carden@thoth.ics.uci.edu (Robert C. Carden IV)
Subject: Re: gcc-2.1 on SCO Unix 3.2
Summary: it works without gas and gcc-ld
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Reply-To: carden@ics.uci.edu (Robert C. Carden IV)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:57:03 GMT
Distribution: gnu

In article <9204062131.AA00759@lascar.puc.cl_>
ebb@lascar.puc.cl (Eduardo Bustos Bahamonde) writes:
>
>	I'm trying to compile 'gcc-2.1' in an Intel 386 based machine
>with the SCO System V Version 3.2 operating system. SCO encapsulates
>COFF. Because of this, I have attempted to compile 'gas-1.38.1' with
>the COFF patches. This also has failed.

To my amazement (and pleasure) gcc2.1 produces COFF code which can then
be assembled and loaded by the native stock assembler and loader.  Thus,
forget about gas and binutils and just build the thing.

I found that gcc-2.1 compiles right out of the box.  I should note, though,
that I used an earlier version of gcc (2.0) to create the initial set of
executables.

Robert
From: ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: One example where gcc 2.1 is worse than 1.37.1
Date: 6 Apr 1992 17:48:07 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alhena.usc.edu

I have a problem here.
In short: on 100 runs, gcc 1.37.1 is 7.0 seconds on average,
gcc 2.1 is 8.5 seconds on average.

Performance of executable produced by gcc 1.37.1:
-------------------------------------------------

number of runs  = 100
sum             = 703.8  
mean            = 7.038  
variance        = 0.0587434
std. deviation  = 0.24237
minimum         = 6.8    
maximum         = 7.9    

Performance of executable produced by gcc 2.1
---------------------------------------------

number of runs  = 100
sum             = 845.5  
mean            = 8.455  
variance        = 0.0936111
std. deviation  = 0.305959
minimum         = 8.1    
maximum         = 9.4    

Info about benchmarking
-----------------------

Flags for old: -O
Flags for new: -static -O2 -funroll-loops

Program: ftp.uu.net: usenet/comp.sources.reviewed/volume01/ols

Test case: the ols distribution contains a file named 'data.1k'.
        I said
                cat `repeat 10 echo -n 'data.1k '` > data.10k
        Then I timed a given executable by saying
                repeat 100 ols data.1k

This computer is:
OS/MP 4.1A.1 Export(S5GENERIC/root)#0: Mon Sep 30 16:11:19 1991
System type is Solbourne Series5e/900 with 128 MB of memory.
-- 

Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: gcc installation for CROSS COMPILATIONS.
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:53:05 GMT

GCC 2 has much better support for cross compilation than GCC 1.
To use GCC 1 as a cross compiler, you basically have to repeat
on your own all the work we have done on this in GCC 2.

Why spend time duplicating effort in this way?  Get GCC 2
if this is what you want to do.
From: Marc_Van-Woerkom@ac.maus.de (Marc Van-Woerkom)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Re: Cross compiler generation, gcc
Message-Id: <A48860@AC.maus.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 07:27:00 GMT
Organization: MausNet
X-Gateway: MausGate/News 1.04

Hmm.. I don't know your error, but this seems familiar:

bo> make CC=gcc LANGUAGES=c; make CC=gcc install
bo> make CC=gcc LANGUAGES=c; make stage1; make CC=gcc install
bo> make LANGUAGES=c; make install
bo> make LANGUAGES=c; make stage1; make install
bo> make LANGUAGES=c; make stage1; make CC=stage1/gcc CFLAGS="-g -O -Bstage1/"

I had some trouble building for C and C++ only, because the LANGUAGES="c c++"
was needed for more make steps than I thought, at least for the
"make install". Perhaps you have less trouble if you add LANGUGES=c to
all your make invokements.


Bye, Marc
(Net)
From: rr2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Andrew Ryan)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Re: cpp macro expansion causes problem building X11R5
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:06:36 GMT
	<9204101100.AA06018@jekyll.ccv>
Distribution: gnu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.gnu.gcc.help: 10-Apr-92 cpp macro expansion causes
.. Richard M. Stallman@ccv. (343)

> It seems that X11 is making invalid assumptions about what cpp does;
> perhaps X11 should be fixed not to do that.

X11 explicitly makes the assumption that a non-ansi style cpp is being
used.  I believe they even supply one...

In any case adding -traditional to the flags that get passed to gcc-cpp
from imake should solve the problem.

-Rob Ryan
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: shocking@cxbne.cx.OZ.AU (Steve Hocking)
Subject: Re: One example where gcc 2.1 is worse than 1.37.1
Organization: Comperex Australia Pty Limited
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:23:29 GMT

ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:

>Flags for old: -O
>Flags for new: -static -O2 -funroll-loops

>Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu

	I beleive that in the doco it says that -funroll-loops will often
decrease the speed of the generated code. Just try -O2 and maybe
-fschedule-insns2

	Cheers,

	Stephen
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Love makes the world go around, but sex makes the ride fun"
		Stephen Hocking - Unix consultant
shocking@cxbne.cx.oz.au			-	I am responsible for myself...
From: koch@tmipi6.telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Gernot Koch)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Installing gcc-2.0 on AIX/PS/2
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:00:32 GMT
Distribution: gnu
Organization: /usr/users_3/koch/.organization


The gcc-Compiler uses pseudo-ops, which the PS/2-Assembler doesn't know.
These are '.section .init' and '.section .fini'. Which changes in the 
source-code of gcc-2.0 are necessary to force the Compiler to omit these
pseudo-ops?

The AIX/PS/2-version is 1.2.1

Gernot Koch
koch@telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de
 
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: eric14@postgres.uucp (Eric Baldeschwieler)
Subject: gcc warnings question
Keywords: gcc startup main c
Reply-To: eric14@postgres.UUCP (Eric Baldeschwieler)
Organization: Postgres Research Group, UC Berkeley
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:21:07 GMT


Hi, would like to use gcc's -Wall flag, but can not because the code I
am using includes lots of machine generated header files which contain
static variable declarations.  This floods me with useless warnings.
Is there some way of flaging these variables so that I don't get the
warnings?  With other compilers one can say:

	#pragma unused(variableName)

Does gcc have such a feature?

Thanks
From: mark@loki.une.edu.au (Mark Garrett)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Re: Awesome GCC 2.1
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:15:16 GMT
Organization: University of New England - Northern Rivers, (Lismore)

From article <1992Apr4.195629.6349@ctr.columbia.edu>, by jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel):
> It took almost 45 minutes each way!
> on the same image now take less than 45 *seconds* each!  Never before have
> I seen a *60 times* performance improvement just from using a different

Gcc is good, but not that good, I'd look for other things like how poor
a compiler is the other one you used.

	Cheers
		Mark :)
-- 
Mark Garrett	Internet:  mark@loki.une.edu.au	Phone: 	+61 66 20 3859
   University of New England, Northern Rivers, Lismore NSW Australia.
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: broadley+@pitt.edu (William H Broadley)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Gnu CC and Libc++.a
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:21:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I seem to have gcc 2.1 up and running on a hp-730 running HP-UX 8.07,
and been having problems compiling the c++ library.

The g++ compiler came up no problem but haven't been able to compile the
c++ library.  

Do I need some as yet unreleased gnu utilities?  
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: dan@dribble.c-mols.siu.edu (Dan Ellison)
Subject: Re: gcc-2.1 on SCO Unix 3.2
Organization: Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, IL (SIU-C)
Distribution: gnu
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:37:17 GMT

In <29E1E26F.14079@ics.uci.edu> carden@thoth.ics.uci.edu (Robert C. Carden IV) writes:

>In article <9204062131.AA00759@lascar.puc.cl_>
>ebb@lascar.puc.cl (Eduardo Bustos Bahamonde) writes:
>>
>>	I'm trying to compile 'gcc-2.1' in an Intel 386 based machine
>>with the SCO System V Version 3.2 operating system. SCO encapsulates
>>COFF. Because of this, I have attempted to compile 'gas-1.38.1' with
>>the COFF patches. This also has failed.

>To my amazement (and pleasure) gcc2.1 produces COFF code which can then
>be assembled and loaded by the native stock assembler and loader.  Thus,
>forget about gas and binutils and just build the thing.

>I found that gcc-2.1 compiles right out of the box.  I should note, though,
>that I used an earlier version of gcc (2.0) to create the initial set of
>executables.

I can't say that it compiled RIGHT out of the box....  I had to change the
definitions in iostream.ioconfig to implement the NO_DOLLAR_IN_LABEL directive
so the one of the str modules would compile.  Otherwise everythign went
smoothly.  There are still some problems with the libg++-2.0 code but I'm
confident that these will be worked out soon.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Dan Ellison, Network Admin	  -    	Molecular Science Program SIU-C | 
| Southern Illinois University 	  - 	Carbondale, IL 62901            |   
| FAX:      (618) 453-3459        -   	PHONE:    (618) 453-7310 	|
From: mlord@bmers63.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: gcc ported to i80x96 ??
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:08:46 GMT
Organization: BNR, Ottawa, Canada

I am in need of a good compiler for the Intel 80x96 family (80196KB),
and was wondering if perhaps some kind person has already ported a
version of gcc for this processor?  (not in std. gcc distribution).

Email would be best, though I will monitor these groups for replies.

Thanks!
Xref: sparky gnu.gcc.help:1082 comp.sys.apollo:2244
From: kt1tb@castor.kt1.tu-harburg.de (Thomas Bartsch)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help,comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Help needed with GCC 2.1 on HP Apollo 400t running Domain/OS
Keywords: gcc, apollo, Domain/OS
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: bartsch@tu-harburg.de (Thomas Bartsch)
Followup-To: gnu.gcc.help
Organization: Tech. Univ. Hamburg-Harburg, Germany
Originator: kt1tb@tuhhco.rz.tu-harburg.de


Hi networld,

I just tried to compile gcc-2.1 on my HP Apollo 9000/400t running
Domain/OS 10.3.4 .
I used GNU's make-3.62, and gcc-1.40 and gas-1.38.1 with Apollo-COFF-Patches.
The new GCC stuff compiles file until make tries to build libgcc2.a. Then it
produces the following messages:

>   castor:kt1tb.39% gmake LANGUAGES=c
>   ...
>   rm -f tmplibgcc2.a
>   set -e; for name in _muldi3 _divdi3 _moddi3 _udivdi3 _umoddi3 _negdi2 _lshrdi3 _lshldi3 
>   _ashldi3 _ashrdi3 _udivmoddi4 _cmpdi2 _ucmpdi2 _floatdidf _floatdisf _fixunsdfsi 
>   _fixunssfsi _fixunsdfdi _fixdfdi _fixunssfdi _fixsfdi _varargs _eprintf _builtin_new 
>   _builtin_New _builtin_del _bb _shtab _clear_cache _trampoline __main _exit; 
>   do echo ${name}; ./gcc -O2    -g -B./ -g1 -I. -I. -I./config -c -DL${name} ./libgcc2.c -o ${name}.o; 
>   if [ $? -eq 0 ] ; then true; else exit 1; fi; 
>   ar rc tmplibgcc2.a ${name}.o; rm -f ${name}.o; done
>   _muldi3
>   cc1: warning: `-g' option not supported on this version of GCC
>   cc1: warning: `-g1' option not supported on this version of GCC
>   /usr/tmp/cca07993.s:7:"instruction/operands mismatch" -- Statement 'link a6,#-32' ignored
>   /usr/tmp/cca07993.s:8:"Malformed operand" -- Statement 'moveml #0x3820,sp@-' ignored
>   /usr/tmp/cca07993.s:18:"instruction/operands mismatch" -- Statement 'andl a6@(-12),d2' ignored
>   /usr/tmp/cca07993.s:21:"instruction/operands mismatch" -- Statement 'andl a6@(-20),d1' ignored
>   /usr/tmp/cca07993.s:25:"instruction/operands mismatch" -- Statement 'mulsl d1,d4' ignored
>   (and a lot more of the above...)
>   gmake: *** [libgcc2.a] Error 1 

These messages seem to be specific to version 2.x. The library could be build
with gcc-1.40, but then making stage1 fails!
By the way, the same stuff compiles without problems on our DEC5000/125.

So, if anyone in the networld has a solution for my problems, please answer me
(e-Mail preferred, I will post a summary).

Thanks in advance,

Thomas

=============================================================================
Thomas Bartsch                         Phone: +49-40-7718-2148
Tech. Univ. Hamburg-Harburg            Fax:   +49-40-7718-2296
Inst. of Engineering Design I
Denickestrasse 17                      e-Mail: bartsch@tu-harburg.dbp.de
D-2100 Hamburg 90                              kt1tb@castor.kt1.tu-harburg.de
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: chucks@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Chuck Strickland)
Subject: cross compiler sparc to mips gcc-2.1
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:29:37 GMT

 I am attempting to build gcc 2.1 as cross compiler sparc to mips.

 I build and installed gcc2.1 native mode on sparc runnging sunos 4.1.1.
 I used gnu tools bison, gas etc.
 this runs with no problems. I then did the following.

 make clean
 make distclean
 configure --gas -target=mips -host=sun4
 I edited the Makefile and set CC=gcc.
 and changed the prefix to /pub/local/gnu for our site.
 then did make.
 it died with the following error:

 gcc -c -DCROSS_COMPILE   -g     -I. -I. -I./config mips-tfile.c
mips-tfile.c:601: stdio.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:678: sys/types.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:679: a.out.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:680: string.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:681: ctype.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:682: fcntl.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:683: errno.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:684: signal.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:685: sys/stat.h: No such file or directory
mips-tfile.c:690: stab.h: No such file or directory
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `mips-tfile.o'

 it would appear that the new gcc cross compiler is no longer
 looking in the correct place for its include files. Since
 at this poing gcc is the newly built one not the native mode
 gcc I built earlier.

 I am stumped at this point. Help is desparately needed.

 thanks.

-- 
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
Malcolm C. Strickland                 Martin Marietta Electronic Systems
chuck-strickland@orl.mmc.com          mail point 1304    
Phone: 407-356-5909                   pobox 628007
Fax:   407-356-8944                   orlando florida 32862-8007
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
From: allen@golem.ssc.gov (Mike Allen)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: comparisons of gcc and other C compilers
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:49:39 GMT
Reply-To: Michael_Allen@ssc.gov
Distribution: gnu
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX

I am sorry if this is the wrong list, but I do need help.  I am trying
to keep gcc and g++ from being booted out of our department.  Their
argument is very compelling, "Hey, if it's from Sun it's obviously
good.  Further, anything you pay for is obviously good."

Does anyone have data concerning specifically the quality of gcc, both
at producing accurate code and efficient code?  What I really need is
quantitative data.  Please email to me and I will summarize and post
if there is enough interest.

-Thanks,
 Michael
--
===============================================================================
	German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, on the inauguration of Germany's first
Holocaust memorial, saying Germans must never forget Nazi atrocities:
	``(We) owe it to our children and grandchildren. We must pass on to
them the realization that it is not at all self-evident that one should
be allowed to live in peace and freedom.''
From: Marc_Van-Woerkom@ac.maus.de (Marc Van-Woerkom)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Re: Bison ??
Message-Id: <A48859@AC.maus.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 07:23:00 GMT
Organization: MausNet
X-Gateway: MausGate/News 1.04

dc> Seriously...  what is BISON ??

It's GNU's YACC, a Himalaya bison :-)

YACC == Yet Another Compiler Compiler, a tool to build a parser.


Bye, Marc
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: jmm@world.std.com (Jones M Murphy)
Subject: Re: Are the VMS binaries available yet?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: gnu
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:52:04 GMT

youngdale@v6550c.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale) writes:

>>
>>The subject says it all.  Does anyone have the VMS binaries available for
>>gcc-2.1 and libg++-2.0?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Butch


>	Both are available for anonymous ftp from mango.rsmas.miami.edu.

Not so. I just tried anonymous ftp. I couldn't get past the login prompt.
Anywhere else?
Jones
From: uddeborg@sisu.se (G|ran Uddeborg)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Re: sun pic from gcc?
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:06:24 GMT
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Swedish Institute of Systems Development

In article <1992Apr3.700.14098@channel1> kiran.shah@channel1.COM (Kiran Shah) writes:
>We are so-far satisfied users of 'gcc' version 1.39 on our Sun 
	...
>Does GNU provide any tools
>for creating PIC, or shared libraries?  If so, please direct us
>to the appropriate sources.

Try gcc version 2.
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: mitch@clsi (Mitchell N. Perilstein)
Subject: How to organize fixed includes for different OS versions? (Sun)
Organization: CAD Language Systems, Inc.
Distribution: gnu
Date: 6 Apr 92 08:35:30

We have 2.1 running fine on SunOS 4.0, and would like it on 4.1 also, since
the binaries should be upwardly compatible. Results of install-fixincludes,
for us in /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-sunos4.0/2.1/include, are not
compatible.  

Does anyone have a nice way to do this? Can we simply link around such that
different .../include directories are selected on different hosts, after
making fixincludes on each host? Or must we run configure for 4.1 and live
with two sets of {lib,bin,include}?

Thanks all,
---
 Mitchell N. Perilstein
 CAD Language Systems, Inc. / Rockville, MD 20879-3344 / 301.963.5200


Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: melissag@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Melissa Garber)
Subject: getch()
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:01:54 GMT

I can't find getch() in any of the distribution libraries for gcc 2.1. 
Where is it?

*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

Melissa Garber                               Image Processing Lab
melissa-garber@orl.mmc.com                   Martin Marietta Electronic Systems
Phone: (407) 356-8745                        Orlando, Florida
Fax:   (407) 356-8944

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Subject: cpp macro expansion causes problem building X11R5
Summary: cpp added space in middle of pathname
Keywords: cpp macro X
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:01:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: vela.14634
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

GNU's cpp expands macros, but not in the way that I want.  It adds
a space after the macro expansion (which is documented in cpp.info,
node Output), and this space has caused a problem.

I recently built X11R5 for the first time using (mostly) gcc-2.1.
X uses cpp's macro expansion facility to "fill-in-the-blanks" for
some implementation-dependent items, in particular the directory for
xdm's configuration data.  cpp left a space in the middle of a path
name.

The code that produces xdm-config is in ./mit/clients/xdm/config/Makefile:

xdm-config:: xdm-conf.cpp
	$(RM) $@
	$(CPP) -DXDMDIR=$(XDMDIR) <xdm-conf.cpp | sed -e '/^#  *[0-9][0-9]*  *.*$$/d' -e '/^XCOMM$$/s//#/' -e '/^XCOMM[^a-zA-Z0-9_]/s/^XCOMM/#/' >$@

where XDMDIR has been defined as something like `/usr/X11R5/lib/X11/xdm'.
Here's a simpler example that shows the effect:

Put the following in Makefile:

CPP = /usr/gnu/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sunos4.1.1/2.1/cpp
# CPP = /usr/lib/cpp

xdm-config:: xdm-conf.cpp
	rm -f $@
	$(CPP) -DXDMDIR=floob <xdm-conf.cpp >$@

And here's a piece of xdm-conf.cpp:

DisplayManager.errorLogFile:	XDMDIR/xdm-errors
DisplayManager.pidFile:		XDMDIR/xdm-pid
DisplayManager.keyFile:		XDMDIR/xdm-keys

Invoking make with Makefile as above, the results are:

# 1 ""
DisplayManager.errorLogFile:    floob /xdm-errors
DisplayManager.pidFile:         floob /xdm-pid
DisplayManager.keyFile:         floob /xdm-keys

With the other CPP line enabled, the results are:

# 1 "" 
DisplayManager.errorLogFile:    floob/xdm-errors
DisplayManager.pidFile:         floob/xdm-pid
DisplayManager.keyFile:         floob/xdm-keys

The first output line is the result of skipping the sed script.  I ran
this on a SPARC 4/60 w/ SunOS 4.1.1, and also tried it on a VAX runing
ULTRIX 4.1 with the same results: GNU cpp added a space, and the native
system cpp gave the results I wanted.

Is there any (convenient) way to change GNU cpp's action of adding
a space after macro expansion?

	-- Vince


-- 
Vince Tessier			Dairyland Fertilizer & Supply
vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu	"Purveyors of Bullshit to the Trade"
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: janin@cco.caltech.edu (Adam L. Janin)
Subject: Problem linking gcc .o files to cc .o files
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:18:38 GMT

I have several .o files produced with Sun's cc without the corresponding
source files.  I'd like to link them with gcc source.  When I try to do
this with cc, I get the message that __builtin_saveregs is undefined.
If I use gcc, I get that __assert and _dtconv are undefined.

Is it possible to link code produced by gcc and cc?

	Thanks,

	Adam Janin
	janin@espresso.boeing.com

P.S.  I'm using gcc version 1.37.1.  I understand that we're all the
      way up to 2.1, if that solves the problem.
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
From: derek@aivru.shef.ac.UK (Derek Jones)
Subject: GCC 2.0 cross-compilation
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:11:54 GMT


I have sucessfully built a sparc compiler. I now want to build a cross-compiler 
on the Sun 4 to compile for a Sun3. I have RTM'd the install doc and used
the following construct for the configure:

	configure --host=sun4-sunos4.1.1 --target=sun3-sunos4.1.1

The make fails when it attempts to compile the dummy prog since the assembler
tries to generate code for a 68020 on the sparc. 

Am I missing something obvious here??? 8-I

help appreciated.

regards


Derek Jones.

System Manager.
A.I. Vision Research Unit, Sheffield University, Western Bank,
Sheffield.  S10 2TN. U.K.		  				
Tel: (+44) (0)742 768555 X 6551  	email:  derek@aivru.sheffield.ac.uk
FAX: (+44) (0)742 766515