Re: gcc-3.2 migration
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 06:42:54PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> immo vero scripsit:
> > Depends on when we start it. Since nobody suggested a realistic plan
> > that would be better than Willy's, we IMHO continue going this way. The
> > last showstopper that I heart about are needed modifications on libc to
> > allow some architectures usage of gcc-3.2 code.
>
> Another interesting thing that I've been reading through
> -bugs-dist is that 163264.
> Apparently minor changes exist in glibc 2.3, and
> some packages will fail to build.
I think that was a special case. db1-compat used _LIBC until #163264 was
filed because its source originally came straight from glibc and was
hacked to build independently using an extremely rusty chainsaw.
Although I suppose it's worth looking out for, normal packages shouldn't
and I think almost universally won't be defining _LIBC.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: