This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Don't recommend specific GCC version in installation documentation
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:39:07 -0400
- Subject: Re: Don't recommend specific GCC version in installation documentation
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306282216410 dot 15167 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130628223522 dot 38C812C09C at topped-with-meat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306282256470 dot 15167 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130628231732 dot 216872C09C at topped-with-meat dot com>
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 04:17:32PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The principle is the same. I just don't think people should have to hunt
> around to figure out what the release dates of various glibc and gcc
> versions were. I think the release manager's checklist including making
> one trivial commit to a macro definition based on the info on the wiki is a
> tiny burden for a release manager compared to the burden on users.
I agree. Since glibc is rather sensitive to changes in GCC, knowing
the latest version of GCC with which a particular version of glibc was
tested is important. I think each release should have at least:
1. Minimum GCC version supported with this release.
2. Latest GCC version tested and known to work with this release.
and possibly any other relevant information about GCC versions that
affects people building this release of glibc.
Rich