This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
an FAQ update
- To: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: an FAQ update
- From: Bruno Haible <haible at ilog dot fr>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:38:50 +0100 (CET)
Now that gcc 2.95.2.1 is released, the FAQ should recommend it instead
of gcc 2.95.2 + unofficial patch.
Bruno
*** FAQ.in Tue Jan 2 16:16:31 2001
--- FAQ.in.new Thu Jan 11 22:35:45 2001
***************
*** 626,632 ****
glibc 2.x?
{AJ} There's only correct support for glibc 2.0.x in gcc 2.7.2.3 or later.
! But you should get at least gcc 2.95.2 (or later versions) instead.
?? The `gencat' utility cannot process the catalog sources which
were used on my Linux libc5 based system. Why?
--- 626,632 ----
glibc 2.x?
{AJ} There's only correct support for glibc 2.0.x in gcc 2.7.2.3 or later.
! But you should get at least gcc 2.95.2.1 (or later versions) instead.
?? The `gencat' utility cannot process the catalog sources which
were used on my Linux libc5 based system. Why?
***************
*** 1020,1029 ****
?? When recompiling GCC, I get compilation errors in libio.
! {BH} You are trying to recompile gcc 2.95.2? After upgrading to glibc 2.2,
! you need to apply a patch to the gcc sources, because the fpos_t type and
! a few libio internals have changed in glibc 2.2. T he patch is at
! http://clisp.cons.org/~haible/gcc-glibc-2.2-compat.diff
? Source and binary incompatibilities, and what to do about them
--- 1020,1028 ----
?? When recompiling GCC, I get compilation errors in libio.
! {BH} You are trying to recompile gcc 2.95.2? Use gcc 2.95.2.1 instead.
! This version is needed because the fpos_t type and a few libio internals
! have changed in glibc 2.2, and gcc 2.95.2.1 contains a corresponding patch.
? Source and binary incompatibilities, and what to do about them