Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 06:06:13PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> But now I'm seeing that you have refined a patch which begins to deal with #1, right?

I am doing what I can. But I cannot speek for everyone.

I think one key issue has been ignored by the gcc developers so far is
how to deal with gcc as a system compiler. It has been deferred to the
system vendors. They get away with it since before gcc 3.0, gcc doesn't
contain any system shared libraries. But libgcc_s.so.1, which I believe
is necessary, in gcc 3.0 changes everything. But most of the gcc
developers still believe they can pass the ball to the system vendors
all together. Glibc is another GNU project where we have to deal with
this issue from day 1. It can be a complex issue. We are still learning
everyday. For those gcc developers who are curious, check out

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2001-07/msg00016.html


H.J.