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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -

From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
Cc: shawn dot starr at rogers dot com, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:19:05 -0800
Subject: Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
References: <20040105201611.UNAO23685.fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@localhost><87smiugkj0.fsf@codesourcery.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0401052129290.2431@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><87oeth3ni5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0401060105130.5058@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:

> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> Nope - as noted downthread, the "portable alternatives" are not
>> supported by some systems we support.
>
> What systems (bearing in mind the various deprecations - anything no
> longer supported as a target surely doesn't need to be considered as a
> build or host system for cross-compilers)?

Dan alleges some BSD, and I remember HPUX 10 was mentioned last time
this came up.

zw

References:
- Building binutils/gcc/glibc - (Was NPTL bind 9.2.3 issue)
  - From: shawn.starr
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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