This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>
- Subject: Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 17:01:42 -0700
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pb at tazenda dot demon dot co dot uk, espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr
- References: <200009042207.e84M7VE00958@delius.kettenis.local>
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:07:31AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> Bullshit. Binutils 2.10 is perfecty usable on Linux/x86. Sure, it
> has some bugs, but most of them are in dark corners of gas or ld. The
They may be dark corners for you. But they may be show stoppers for
those Linix developers who are affected.
> I strongly suspect it isn't "needed" for glibc 2.2 except when you're
> using the mainline GCC. Building glibc 2.2 for Linux/x86 or the Hurd
> with GCC 2.95.2 works fine, except that one test will fail because of
gcc 2.95.2 didn't work with glibc 2.2 for me and many other people.
I guess you know Red Hat will ship a gcc snapshot with upcoming
RedHat 7.0. Do you have a recommendation for binutils in RedHat 7.0?
H.J.