Re: Problem compiling glibc with gcc 2.95.3

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:31:13PM -0000, David Korn wrote:
> 
>   It's kind of dangerous for one program to assume it knows too much
> about the internals of another, and this is a perfect example of why.  I
> guess that because gcc and glibc are quite closely tied to each other,

I just wanna be pedantic here, and point out that they aren't tied to each
other:  glibc is tied to gcc, but not the other way around.  I use gcc on
all kinds of system that don't have glibc.


> 1) gcc-2.95.3+ could notice when it was being asked for the internal
> subprogram 'cpp' and return the result as if it had been asked for 'cpp0'.
> This is a bit of a nasty hack, as it would fail if someone asked for 
> the path to cpp and then stripped off the path and appended the filename
> themselves.

Yeah, that's just disgusting.  :-)  I have no authority in this matter,
but personally I feel that if some other program (in this case, the glibc
project) wants to exploit their knowledge of the internals of gcc (for speed
or whatever reason), that's their responsibility, not gcc's.  In retrospect
I wonder why glibc didn't use the "public interface," as it were, of -E.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.