This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 00:06:09 +0100 (BST)
- cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at stanford dot edu>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, H . J . Lu wrote:
> Well, like I said, the gcc developers have to ACKNOWLEDGE there is a
> problem first.
>
> BTW, I, and other glibc developers, can provide patches to gcc and
> glibc. But they have to be acceptable to both gcc and glibc developers.
> If the gcc developers won't even admit there is a serious problem, do
> you think those gcc patches will be considered?
Could someone please provide a complete, tested patch for 2.95.3 to allow
it to build a working glibc, as an interim measure, that can go in
htdocs/install, and a corresponding patch to gcc/doc/install.texi to link
to that rather than to the old patch against 2.95.2?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk