Jack Howarth writes: > Now that glibc 2.3.1 is in sid, what are the plans > for the transition to gcc 3.2.1?
we are waiting for an transition plan. My assumption was Jeff would propose a transition plan for a _coordinated_ transition of glibc and gcc. It seems a bit late for that :-( > I am assuming we are waiting for the official gcc 3.2.1 release. we have to. Currently gcc-3.2 from the CVS branch is unbuildable due to the new bison-1.50 version. You can find a backport of the bison related patches in gcc-patches or in the Debian gcc CVS, but they cause regressions in the testsuite. > That should be soon however. >From my point of view we have to finish the g++ transition plan first (and if our transition plan is to simply switch and recompile ...). Using gXX-2.95 to link object code built with gcc-3.2 asks for trouble: #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char*argv[]) { printf("%d\n", 16/argc); } Translate with: gcc-3.2 -c div.c gcc-2.95 -o div div.o call: ./div onearg prints 7, not 8. > Are we still planning a bulk rebuild of each arch? I did not hear anything of a rebuild of C related packages, only C++ dependent packages. > I believe ppc should be in excellent shape > for the transition. The only worrisome arches are hppa > (glibc 2.3.1 is still broken there), mips and m68k (those > two will need libgcc-compat code added for glibc 2.3.1). Is glibc-2.3 necessary for the transition on these architectures? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]