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 ?!?
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 04:22:31PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 12:17:34AM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > 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
>
> I am happy with gcc 2.96 from RedHat. I will recommend it over gcc
> 2.95.x for glibc 2.2. But it is only my opinion.
2.95.4 works perfectly fine.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'