This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

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


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]