zcip: 1.1.stable vs 1.2 ?

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
>Bernhard,
>
>> I personally can see, however, that supporting gcc-2.95 for the 1.x
>> series *may* be good, if only to please users. That may be just me,
>> though ;)
>> 
>> Let's see..
>> 
>> There was no va_copy, but only a __va_copy.
>> 
>> Can you try the attached diff against current svn and let me know if
>> that does it for you?
>
>I applied your patch and tried to build "defconfig".
>
>Apart from loads of
>
>ppc_8xx-gcc: unrecognized option `-static-libgcc'

Yes, gcc-2.95 exited with 0 for unsupported options, so the check for CC
-static-libgcc should be moved into the section for 2.95 in Rules.mak.
>
>I get
>
>busybox/util-linux/setarch.c:15: sys/personality.h: No such file or directory
>make[1]: *** [/home/stscholz/Projekte/ZCIP/busybox/util-linux/setarch.o] Error 1
>
>and
>
>busybox/miscutils/miscutils.a(readahead.o): In function `readahead_main':
>readahead.o(.text.readahead_main+0x5c): undefined reference to `readahead'

These are expected since you seem to use an outdated/incomplete libc. Go
bug the maintainers of your libc ;)

That said, both should be fixed (not sure if for your arch, though) with
current uClibc (i.e. trunk), in case you use that.
>
>After disabling both applets build completed.

Ok. I'll apply the small, trivial fix soonish then.
>
>However I still attach a little file with a few compiler warnings. Just in
>case you wanna know. ;-)

nah ;) But thanks anyway.