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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 18:06:13 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20010630162231.A18131@lucon.org> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106301526270.318-100000@straylight.int.sonicity.com> <20010701120217.F737@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <3B4056BC.987A6D4E@unitus.it> <20010702090142.D25410@lucon.org>
Hi,
"H . J . Lu" wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:10:52PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >
> > With difficulties I'm trying to follow the issues discusses in these threads...
> >
> > I would try to summarize something:
> > 1- There is a ("political", I would say) configuration/install issue which may
> > involve (not necessarily, however) GCC (that discussed mostly by H.J. Lu).
> > 2- There is a mostly unrelated ("technical", I would call it) compile-time issue
> > which involves mostly GLIBC (that discussed above by Jakub Jelinek).
>
> More or less, yes. But I won't call the first one "political" :-).
> To me and maybe some glibc developers, it is "technical".
Yes. Sorry for that, I realized that my words could be interpreted that way, only
after having sent the message. This may be due to either my bad command of the english
language or to the fact that I'm much more interested in the *other* issue.
> >
> > Now I'm wondering if those two could be dealt with separately.
>
> If there is no solution for #1, some glibc developers may feel
> there is no point to pursue #2. Without #1, you may not use gcc
> 3.0 to compile glibc safely.
But now I'm seeing that you have refined a patch which begins to deal with #1, right?
Good news, right?
Sorry again,
Paolo.