|--==> "rdr" == robert delius royar <xemacs(a)frinabulax.org&gt; writes: rdr> Has anyone been successful compiling 21.5.12 using the prerelease rdr> recent snapshots of gcc (3.3)? I can compile fine with 3.2.3 rdr> (release) and 3.3-pch (2002-12-05), but recent 3.3 snapshots (e.g rdr> 2003-05-05) breakdown after a number of "inline code fails to rdr> return" warnings. I can't say for 3.3, but I can get a successful compile with: gcc-3.4 (GCC) 3.4 20030506 (experimental) I do get lots of "inline code fails to return" warnings, but it still completes the compile. rdr> I am wondering whether it is worth recompiling an earlier rdr> snapshot. Perhaps go the other way and compile a newer version. -- |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---| | XEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. | | Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! | |------------------------------------&lt;youngs(a)xemacs.org&gt;---|

On Fri, 9 May 2003 about 16:23 +0900 UTC Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: After three hours of compiling gcc 3.4 (the latest CVS). I ran configure on XEmacs with the latest XEmacs CVS and complete success. 3.4 even understands Mac-specific directives. My problem was wading through gcc.gnu.org and finding the source (checkout TAG: HEAD). I needed to recompile under the current 10.2.6 OS X so that I could redo my pre-compiled headers correctly to speed up compilations. But that's not possible without the correct source tree. Anyway, thanks for the help. BTW (to Steve T.) I use the Mac X11 Beta 3 but no fink. Fink is a religion among many Mac users--perhaps because it makes mac more like Linux, but I'm more familiar with BSD (FreeBSD) and also had a number of problems when I installed fink--problems with shadowed libraries and include files. But as I said, it's a religion, and best not to say anything bad about fink. -- Dr. Robert Delius Royar Associate Professor of English Morehead State University Morehead, Kentucky Kill UGLY Corporate Radio If you can't say something nice, say something surrealistic. -Zippy