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: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com dot com
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 11:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:23:44 -0700
> From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@Stanford.EDU>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com.com
> If you post a patch for GCC to gcc-patches, I hereby promise that I
> will not ignore it. (Be aware that I may have only sporadic net
> access for the next month or so, however.)
There are some problems patches cannot fix, ever. If an
incompatibility is allowed to go in, and is then shipped, but caught
after the release, one is screwed. If you accept a patch to fix it,
you restore binary compatibility with the older version, but you break
compatibility with the newer version. If you don't accept the patch,
you maintain binary compatibility with the new version, but break with
the old.
The game is rigged so one cannot win. The only way to win, is to
never, ever, do this. That cannot be done, without extreme caution
and control and knowledge and skill and attention. To me, it sounds
like this is one of HJ concerns. HJ, if it isn't, apologies.