Re: RFD : libg++/gcc/egcs upgrades needed for libc6
glad you're back.
On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 10:56:36PM -0700, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
[egcs vs gcc]
> I'll try to pick up the 1.0.1 source again tomorrow, and package it. It's
> _so_ nice to have disk space again.
> Does anyone else have anything to say about this?
Both egcs's cpp and gcc 2.8's cpp have problems that show up with
imake-generated Makefiles (#17307). These will have to be solved before we
move away from gcc 126.96.36.199 as the standard compiler.
I did the non-maintainer release of 2.8.0 in experimental. I agree that in
the current situation, egcc is the preferred compiler. I do think however we
should have a gcc 2.8.0 package available, and encourage maintainers to test
their packages against it. Given the problems, experimental is probably the
I'd like to encourage you to build gcc and egcs fully bootstrapped (#17154)
and with an additional debian/rules target for running the testsuite (gcc
doesn't have an integrated one yet; egcs does, but requires a "build of the
POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened
yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .