Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!rutgers!umn-d-ub!rhealey
From: rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: 68020/68881? gcc, gas and company
Keywords: faster faster faster
Message-ID: <3001@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Date: 9 Nov 89 21:50:20 GMT
References: <13@bagend.UUCP> <1989Oct29.214226.17546@i88.isc.com> <2462@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <18551@rphroy.UUCP> <2466@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <2968@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <3600@puff.cs.wisc.edu>
Reply-To: rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu.UUCP (Rob Healey)
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
Lines: 24


 In some previous article I sez:
>>	gcc already works like a charm on the UNIX PC and needs no work
>>	to get it going, this is as of the 1.36 version which I got
>>	via anonymous ftp from somewhere. As I said above, gdb 3.33 works
 In some previous article Sparkie sez:
>What does one have to have to get gdb compiled.  I've not tried, but have
>been told that you've got to get: bison(don't have), gas(don't have),
>gcc(hey, I've got that 1.36), and gld (don't have).  What about to get 
>g++ compiled?  My first goal is gdb, because I need a good debugger and 
>sdb SUCKS!! (sorry for getting a bit out of hand)  Anyway, anyone with
>some experience with this please let me know.  I'm itching for a good
>debugger.  Will the fact that I have gcc make things easier?
>

	OOOOOOOOOOPS, I forgot to mention one MIIIIIINOR little detail,
	the COFF gdb compiled on an Encore Multimax and NOT the UNIX PC.
	Actually, the current gdb3.3 and the Multimax have a difference
	of opinion about which symbols be which but that's another
	unpleasant story...

		Sorry about the mix up,

			-Rob