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: Torsten dot Duwe at caldera dot de
- Subject: Re: PR review for 2.2.4: #1974
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:33:11 +0200
- Cc: 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> <15134.788.833496.376763@ns.caldera.de>
- Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:16:52PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>
> >> 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
I said 2.95.3 + patches because with 2.95.3 you need very few patches
(probably just the atexit one), at least this patch is in 2.95.3 among other
things.
> Jakub> gcc-2_95-branch, gcc-2.96-RH
>
> gcc-2.96-RH ? C'mon, please !
I was listing complete list of compilers which work with glibc 2.2, this is
one of them.
> 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.
This does not make sense. Said patch cannot be on gcc-3 branch, since the
patch was for libstdc++-v2 which is no longer present in gcc (and
libstdc++-v3 does not have these problems).
So if you're using gcc-3_0-branch for ia64, the patch wouldn't apply (the
files got removed), if you're using something older (such as Jim Wilson's
snapshot), then the patch should be already in.
Jakub