This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file
- From: David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:51:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file
- References: <CAMZ=zj40GLLXB0toTGhpJihm--eMYMd643SOVGcPUg+LpRuZ8g at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EF8D98 dot 3060005 at redhat dot com> <CAMZ=zj67PA=yYGnkCZmG3Yet45r5=f=HvWcu6p_v2VgNfo--4w at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EFB70C dot 3050309 at redhat dot com> <CAAiZkiB6azOhjG1KwEMTSkJRga=6ONL63HW5q23nxCgSahFaNQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EFDA52 dot 8000903 at redhat dot com> <CAAiZkiBMmLGrYgb0kE2CSCJnpRtRa3ZBa1x+2jVVpBjaAZnozQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EFF7AE dot 8070301 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> Not at all: we're just disagreeing about what a real system with
> a real workload looks like.
No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to
enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way
through with an obscure error message. Real systems need features that
aren't enabled by default sometimes.
> It's a stupid thing to say anyway, because
> who is to say their system is more real than mine or yours?
By that logic, you've already said that any system needing GNAT is
less real then others, because it's not enabled by default.
--
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.