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