This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: required gcc for 2.3
- From: Philip Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>
- To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, drepper at redhat dot com
- Date: 06 Sep 2002 14:25:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: required gcc for 2.3
- References: <200209061319.JAA08971@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 14:19, Jack Howarth wrote:
> How rigid is the requirement for gcc 3.2 to build glibc 2.3?
> I noticed that was stated in the current INSTALL. In general I
> think that is a very good thing to have there. However on debian
> we have a slew of arches which have not been properly tested
> for their need of a sysdeps/<arch>/libgcc-compat.c (to provide
> libgcc symbols that went .hidden in gcc > 3.1). I have proposed
> to the debian glibc maintainers that, as a temporary workaround,
> we just build those questionable arches on a gcc < 3.1 until
> the libgcc-compat situation is resolved.
The Debian porters for those "questionable arches" should just do the
appropriate work to solve the problem. If binaries break with missing
symbols, it will be obvious what the problem is. I don't think that
compiling with an older gcc will buy us anything.