This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@cygnus.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: glibc 2.0.112



Thanks Richard, Alex, and Dan for the corrections.  

I'd really appreciate if some native speakers could proof read the
whole FAQ (and also the rest of the documentation;-).

Ulrich, please add the appended patch to the FAQ.

Thanks,
Andreas
============================================================
Index: FAQ.in
--- FAQ.in	1999/01/29 07:55:33	1.59
+++ FAQ.in	1999/01/31 23:04:06
@@ -303,13 +303,16 @@
 test in the sources.
 
 There are some failures which are not directly related to the GNU libc:
-- Some compiler produce buggy code.  The egcs 1.1 release should be ok.  gcc
-  2.8.1 might cause some failures, gcc 2.7.2.x is so buggy, that explicit
+- Some compilers produce buggy code.  No compiler gets single precision
+  complex numbers correct on Alpha.  Otherwise, the egcs 1.1 release should be ok;
+  gcc 2.8.1 might cause some failures; gcc 2.7.2.x is so buggy that explicit
   checks have been used so that you can't build with it.
 - The kernel might have bugs.  For example on Linux/Alpha 2.0.34 the
   floating point handling has quite a number of bugs and therefore most of
-  the test cases in the math subdirectory will fail.  Linux 2.2 has
-  fixes for the floating point support on Alpha.
+  the test cases in the math subdirectory will fail.  Linux 2.2 has fixes
+  for the floating point support on Alpha.  The Linux/Sparc kernel has also
+  some bugs in the fpu emulation code (as of Linux 2.2.0).
+
 
 ??	What is symbol versioning good for?  Do I need it?
 

-- 
 Andreas Jaeger   aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de    jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de
  for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de


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