* Christian Sühs chris@suehsi.de [051215 22:22]:
Unfortanetly, with gcc 2.96 I'm not able to compile the LB image itself :D
As I said: Don't use 2.96, except the world goes under otherwise. ;)
Furthermore, I work on a selfmade minimal distro, but I will try to compile a working gcc version to compile both, flashtool and the image without any warnings
Ah, maybe crosstool is of interest for you. It allows you to build different combinations of gcc, binutils and libc very easily. Just google for it.
Currently I'm wondering about the differences in gcc. For flashtool I get warnings for comparisons between signed and unsigned only, without the -Werror Flag and the gcc 3.3 version. Why isn't gcc backwards compatible?
In this case removing -Werror should be fine. A gdb run of the segmentation fault would be very interesting. I don't have an 8.2 machine here anymore, unfortunately.
gcc has never been without such side effects, and using stuff like -Werror might give safety on a couple of systems, but also introduces compilation problems on others. Is your gcc 3.3 a prerelease? (ie. as shipped with SUSE a couple of times) those prereleases often handle code better than the final releases, but they might have warnings enabled that never occur again in any later version.
Now I have the tool compiled with gcc 2.96 and it works, but compiling the image with gcc 3.3 results in the same warnings and a few warnings more. It could be, that the image won't work :(
Does the segfault you saw happen with the 2.96 binary as well? What did you do to get around it?
@Stefan I think i can mail to in german, is it so ??
Indeed. But please make sure to leave the mailing list off the senders list in german mailings. ;-)
Regards, Stefan