Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?

["Zack Weinberg" <zackw at stanford dot edu>]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 10:34:14AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 07:22:58PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > > I believe we can work it out between gcc and glibc developers. But we
> > > first have to acknowledge that libgcc_s.so may be a serious problem on
> > > systems where gcc is used as a system compiler. So far, I haven't seen
> > > any signs that gcc developers have realized it. At lease, if gcc
> > > developers can't understand the full impact of libgcc_s.so, they should
> > > take the glibc developers's word for it. Without the cooperation
> > > between gcc and glibc developers, I don't think we can avoid a big
> > > mess ahead. Based on this, I think Ulrich is right not to recommend
> > > gcc 3.0 for the time being. But we have to find a solution for this
> > > serious problem.
> > 
> > It is the following message from Mark Mitchell:
> > 
> >     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg00767.html
> > 
> 
> It is a very encouraging start. But it has to become a mandate first.
> We should first set a goal which is acceptable to both gcc and glibc
> developers.
> 
> BTW, I don't believe Mark realized the full impact of libgcc_s.so
> in gcc on glibc when he wrote that message. Let me put this way, gcc
> 3.0, as is, is VERY VERY BAD for glibc or any Linux distributions for
> that matter.

We have had this flame war several times already: see threads at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00591.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00957.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00485.html

Everyone please read all of those messages before continuing this
incarnation of the flame war.

-- 
zw                       This APT has Super Cow Powers.
                         	-- apt-get 0.5