This is the mail archive of the
libc-hacker@cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: A patch for glibc 2.0/2.1
- To: hjl@lucon.org
- Subject: Re: A patch for glibc 2.0/2.1
- From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@phys.uva.nl>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 00:57:22 +0100 (CET)
- CC: libc-hacker@cygnus.com
- References: <m103noL-00038dC@ocean.lucon.org>
From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:08:13 -0800 (PST)
glibc is the foundation of a Linux system. We have to deal ANY
potential problems. So many developers have been actively working
on egcs. But very few people work on gcc. When something goes wrong
with glibc which is caused by egcs, we can expect it will be fixed
very quickly. The worst case is I may have to make a Linux release
of egcs to address the problem. But the same thing cannot be said
for gcc. We don't want to be flooded with ANY glibc bug reports
associated with gcc. That is why I suggest we require egcs for
compiling glibc 2.1.
It may be because hardly anybody uses gcc 2.8.1 on Linux anymore, but I
haven't seen any reports about gcc miscompiling glibc lately, whereas
we've seen a lot of bug reports about egcs.
Remember that gcc 2.8.1 has gotten a bad name amongst Linux users
because it fails to compile the 2.0.x kernels, because these used some
undocumented inline assembler features. And of course it is not
really useful for C++ (but who wants to write C++ anyway :-)). But
that's all irrelevent for compiling glibc.
Mark