glibc 2.0.112

Alex Holden alex@linuxhacker.org
Thu Apr 1 00:00:00 GMT 1999


On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 05:40:28PM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >  There are some failures which are not directly related to the GNU libc:
> > -- Some compiler produce buggy code.  The egcs 1.1 release should be ok.  gcc
> > -  2.8.1 might cause some failures, gcc 2.7.2.x is so buggy, that explicit
> > -  checks have been used so that you can't build with it.
> > +- Some compiler produce buggy code.  The egcs 1.1 release should be ok
> > +  (besides some singe precision complex problems on Alpha).  gcc 2.8.1 might
> > +  cause some failures, gcc 2.7.2.x is so buggy, that explicit checks have
> > +  been used so that you can't build with it.
> Meaningless gramatical nit - shouldn't that be compilers?

And "single precision complex number".
And "some failures, but gcc 2.7.2.x is so buggy that".
Sorry.

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------




More information about the Libc-alpha mailing list