Package Details: pcc 1.1.0-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: pcc
Description: A Portable C Compiler
Upstream URL:
Keywords: compiler lightweight portable
Licenses: custom:BSD
Submitter: andreas_baumann
Maintainer: edh
Last Packager: edh
Votes: 19
Popularity: 0.004229
First Submitted: 2009-03-13 10:02
Last Updated: 2020-09-15 09:23

Latest Comments

1 2 3 Next › Last »

edh commented on 2020-09-15 09:23


Thanks for the hint. Fixed!

Elronnd commented on 2020-09-14 01:35

Needs to be built with CFLAGS=-fcommon.

newbthenewbd commented on 2019-09-25 12:06

The package seems to be affected by this bug:

The published workaround of using the -D__float128="long double" option makes it successfully compile, albeit not without a warning.

edh commented on 2019-07-10 12:32

Dropped i686 support as a response.

@cbb It was not some random gist! It was a patch by the previous AUR maintainer hosted on GitHub. Unfortunately, he seem to have deleted it.

cbb commented on 2019-07-10 11:36

This package is now broken because the patch file is no longer online. I suspected this would happen when I read the PKGBUILD, even before I tried to install it. Making a package depend on some random Gist is just asking for it...

edh commented on 2017-07-02 12:31

I added your patch to the package. Thanks for working on this.

andreas_baumann commented on 2017-07-02 11:56

@edh: very good point you are making here about maintainance on AUR. :-)

So I added a patch here:

Note: the CVS/current version is already fixed (differently).
This patch is only a backport for the 1.1.0 release of pcc.

edh commented on 2017-07-02 11:05

Since you are already in contact with the developer, I would recommend you to send the patch to him. There would be no patching required at all if it would be merged.

Btw. it would not make sense to split the AUR by architecture. Hence maintainers may or may not keep support for old architectures in the AUR depending on their workload.

andreas_baumann commented on 2017-07-02 08:07

Found it. But as ArchLinux drops 32-bit, it's debatable whether we should
patch this package here. I don't know what the plans are for ArchLinux32
and the AUR? Will there be an AUR for 32-bit additionally, then the patch
can go there.

andreas_baumann commented on 2017-07-02 07:45

I can confirm that I can compile the package without any problems on 64-bit.
I tried a second compilation in an Arch32 environment, and this one fails again.
So the error must be somewhere there.. I'm digging. :-)