Re: EGCS Re: glibc 2.1 notes
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: EGCS Re: glibc 2.1 notes
- From: Navindra Umanee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:56:24 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <19990228143606.A1560@continuum.cm.nu>; from Shane Wegner on Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 02:36:06PM -0800
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19990228112337.B8003@efis.ucr.ac.cr> <36D97D0D.DAEF4FF7@aasaa.ofe.org> <19990228143606.A1560@continuum.cm.nu>
Montreal Mon Mar 1 07:53:05 1999
Shane Wegner <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 11:29:49AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > I've read that Potato will replace FSF gcc with egcs. Is this still
> > planned? If so, shouldn't glibc 2.1 be compiled by egcs?
> > --
> Ok two things. Firstly, the glibc 2.1 release notes seem to suggest that
> it must be compiled under egcs or gcc 2.8. Appairently it won't even
> compile under gcc 2.7.2.x.
The Linux kernel 2.0.x and possiblly newer should be compiled with GCC
126.96.36.199 and glibc should be compiled with EGCS. Now isn't that
inconvenient? Most people will want to compile their own kernel but I
think only a very small fraction will want to compile glibc.