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: PR review for 2.2.4: #1974


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


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