required gcc for 2.3

[Philip Blundell]

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.

p.