GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?

[Ben Collins]

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  '
 `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'