[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8? |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:37:55 -0600 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dpc [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:54 PM
> To: Weddington, Eric; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?
>
> "Weddington, Eric" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> sorry, that's a typo for the avr-libc version. should be 1.6.8.
Ok, that makes more sense. :-)
> i had pulled gcc 4.6 to test something else that we noticed was broken
> in our local tree and figured i could just save myself the
> download-time.
I would actually suggest using GCC 4.4.3. It's gotten more testing than the
bleeding edge.
- [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/17
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, Weddington, Eric, 2010/06/17
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/17
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?,
Weddington, Eric <=
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, Joerg Wunsch, 2010/06/18
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/18
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/22
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/23
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/18