Archaic wrote these words on 03/31/06 17:19 CST:
It is simply a matter of perspective. Technically, the patch isn't a gcc-3 patch, but rather a C standard compliance patch. I also agree the patch should be renamed to reflect its new purpose (i.e. fix compile errors with gcc-4) if for no other reason that mention of gcc3 will cause some confusion and support questions. The book has had errors in patch names before and this could easily be thought to be one of them by many.
On the flip side of this, couldn't it also be construed then, that the patch is *not* required if you are for (whatever reason) using GCC-3 to compile? You wouldn't believe all the places our patches are. And the fact that it is being renamed to represent a (some would call it an untruth) less-than-technically-correct usage, is in my opinion worse than worrying about somebody that doesn't understand what "required patch" means. As a compromise, perhaps it would be best to update the header description to say that the patch is required for any version of GCC greater than 3.whateveritis.x. But to name it something it is not, in hopes that it *may* stifle some confusion, is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 17:26:00 up 6 days, 6:03, 6 users, load average: 0.14, 0.10, 0.09 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
