This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:01:42 -0700
- Cc: 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>
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".
>
> 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.
H.J.