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 ?!?
Hi,
> 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.
Personally, I think that mentioning 2.96-RH in the official GCC lists is a very
effective strategy to start another flame war ;-)
P.