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: Justin Guyett <jfg at sonicity dot com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, H . J . Lu wrote:
> I am happy with gcc 2.96 from RedHat. I will recommend it over gcc
> 2.95.x for glibc 2.2. But it is only my opinion.
That's fine, but someone building a LFS system may not realize that the
optimal solution is to get the gcc 2.96 srpm from redhat and install that
as the system gcc before beginning. It would be nice to have a release of
gcc that builds all critical linux packages (excepting broken code that
gcc 2.95 allowed). Not to mention gcc developers publically denounced the
rh gcc 2.96 snapshot. Does the 2.95.4 snapshot used by debian have those
two patches in it?
Would gcc 3.0 with static libgcc_s work for recompiling glibc?
I'm just curious... gcc developers, are you content that no released gcc
reliably compiles and produces a completely working glibc?
justin