This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PR review for 2.2.4: #1974
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: PR review for 2.2.4: #1974
- From: Torsten Duwe <duwe at caldera dot de>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:16:52 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: Torsten dot Duwe at caldera dot de, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20010215094356.A3353@valinux.com><14989.24250.474023.584488@ns.caldera.de><20010216091332.A20320@valinux.com><15124.54408.572938.625919@ns.caldera.de><m3snhnjdf7.fsf@D139.suse.de><15124.56194.583339.568099@ns.caldera.de><m3y9rfhxd2.fsf@ <20010606105831.L1253@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
- Reply-to: Torsten dot Duwe at caldera dot de
>> OK, here's my first one: #1974 "Installed glibc-2.2 and can no longer
>> use g++"
>> Indeed this is due to a change in glibc. However, since those changes
>> usually are made for good, we at Caldera decided to sync up our
>> gcc. Can some of you Cygnus folks eval and short circuit this to a gcc
>> maintainer and close the PR? Is it in a CVS branch of gcc already ?
Jakub> This is not the only patch you need to get 2.95.2 cope with glibc
Jakub> 2.2. Basically, you need gcc 2.95.3 + patches, CVS
Yes, gcc-2.95.[23] + patches. This is one of them. And my question was
whether whis patch is already in one of the current gcc branches. Let's not
(yet) talk about the others (I see 2 more here), but the actual problem
mentioned in this PR. It's a type conflict between glibc and gcc. This patch
syncs it up in gcc. Nothing more promised, nothing more done. At least this
one is quite obvious, and easy to decide.
Jakub> gcc-2_95-branch, gcc-2.96-RH
gcc-2.96-RH ? C'mon, please !
Jakub> or gcc 3.0+ for glibc 2.2+.
Yes, we're using a gcc-3 branch for ia64. But said patch isn't in; that's why
I'm asking.
Torsten