Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>]

>    Linux is one of major GNU "customers" and egcs was trusted to become
>    the official version of gcc by GNU. I would expect this assumes some
>    responsibility.

Yes.  GCC 2.95 was thoroughly tested on Red Hat 6.0.

>    I am very surprised that you are trying to marginalize a common
>    platform and explicitely refuse to ensure consistent effort.

Nonsense.  Package management is important, but is not the job of the
GCC team.  It is the job of those who put together distributions.
Complain to them.  The GCC team will not provide binary distributions
for any platform, period (though some member of the team might, on his
own, do so).

Let's say that we did put out an RPM and called it "official".  If we did,
we'd be stepping on Red Hat's turf.  It's up to them to produce a *set* of
RPMs that are consistent with each other, decide on version numbers, etc.

>    P.S. yes, I do understand that everyone is a volunteer and can
>         dissapear forever in 5 mins, but I am not asking you to thank me
>         for sending you  bug reports.

You are sending bug reports to the wrong place.  Send them to the person
who made the RPMs.

And you also need to learn to communicate more politely.  With all of the
stresses of getting this release out and dealing with last-minute FSF
concerns, people are stressed out.  We really don't need to hear insults
from a whiner who messed up his system by his own actions and seeks to
blame others.