Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Assembler errors

From: Andrew Lord <andrewlord(at)>
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 04:21:36 GMT
Hi David,

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:47 am, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 10:34, Andrew Lord wrote:
> > Looks like some success has been had, although other problems now seem
> > evident.  Removal of the 02 flag from the Makefile brings about the
> > following printout from make:
> Does SWISH-E seem to execute alright?  That may be as good as it gets on
> Red Hat 7.2.
Yes, it passes the tests OK but I didn't know what to make of the warnings and 
considered that there may have been circumstances in which swish wouldn't 
work correctly, despite compiling OK ?  From what I now understand, my 
concerns may be misplaced.

> > # # # # # # # # gcc -v
> > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs
> > gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 2.96-108.7.2)
> > # # # # # # # # ld -v
> > GNU ld version 2.10.91 (with BFD
> Ewh, you're probably lucky if anything compiles.  Their GCC 2.96
> packages never really worked well.  Red Hat finally released a RH 7.2
> errata package named "gcc3" in Feb 2002 which provides a more stable GCC
> 3.0.4 compiler.  Red Hat's gcc3 errata package will co-exist with the
> default GCC 2.96 compiler.
> If your web host is willing to install (or already has) the gcc3 package
> for RH 7.2 from RHN then SWISH-E can be configured to use it like this:
>   ./configure CC=gcc3

Mmm.  Wish they would and I tried to get them to upgrade but Ensim have not 
been cooperative; as I understand it, any modifications to their existing 
server setup will invalidate any warranties.  The host has told me there is 
only one version of gcc on their server, too, so the above configuration 
seems to be out of the question.  Dang!  But thanks for explaining how to 
specify which gcc package to use.  Might come in handy in the future.

> It may or may not help.  I'm not entirely sure.  If SWISH-E builds and
> works under GCC 2.96 with the -O2 flag removed then you may not want to
> bother.

Well, since it passes the tests and both you and Bill seem to think that it'll 
be OK despite the warnings, I'll go ahead with it as is.  

Thanks for your help.


Received on Tue Jul 22 04:21:44 2003