This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:22:58 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Organization: Università della Tuscia, Viterbo, ITALY
- References: <3B3D8A43.D62375F5@unitus.it> <20010630090546.A1385@lucon.org>
- Reply-To: pcarlini at unitus dot it
Hi,
thank you very much for your reply, which finally clarifies for me many
points of the whole issue (in practice I add realized myself the impact of
the shared libgcc but not its "political" implications)
What may I add? I'm only a passionate user.
Just a pointer, which you may read as a reply to the following sentence of
yours and indeed as a clear sign of cooperation
[snip]
> I believe we can work it out between gcc and glibc developers. But we
> first have to acknowledge that libgcc_s.so may be a serious problem on
> systems where gcc is used as a system compiler. So far, I haven't seen
> any signs that gcc developers have realized it. At lease, if gcc
> developers can't understand the full impact of libgcc_s.so, they should
> take the glibc developers's word for it. Without the cooperation
> between gcc and glibc developers, I don't think we can avoid a big
> mess ahead. Based on this, I think Ulrich is right not to recommend
> gcc 3.0 for the time being. But we have to find a solution for this
> serious problem.
It is the following message from Mark Mitchell:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg00767.html
Thanks again,
Paolo Carlini.