This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 00:17:34 +0100 (BST)
- cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at stanford dot edu>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 12:06:09AM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >
> > Could someone please provide a complete, tested patch for 2.95.3 to allow
>
> What do you need 2.95.3 for? I don't use it myself.
Until the issues from these threads are resolved, 2.95.3 plus a small
patch should be a more conservative solution for reliably building glibc
than 3.0. AFAIK both
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-03/msg01187.html
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg00748.html
are needed, but there should be a properly packaged and tested patch.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk