Hi, We have published two different snapshots for 32 bit Linux builds with libstdc++.so.5 and so.6, but only so.6 snapshots with 64 bit builds. I understand that this was a problem for a couple of users using slightly older versions of gcc. so.5 and so.6 is more a toolset and not a platform issue, and unfortunately 64 bit does not seem to imply new toolsets etc. It's quite likely that we have discussed this already on other threads, and I was not following along.
Thanks, Rana On 4/29/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/30/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/29/07, Tim Ellison wrote: > > Stepan Mishura wrote: > > > On 4/29/07, Tim Ellison wrote: > > >> It looks like a number of people have been testing the stable build > > >> candidate (thanks to everyone!) and so far it seems that there are no > > >> show stoppers for declaring this a good stable build. It's our best so > > >> far, albeit with known problems etc. > > >> > > >> Unless anything serious come to light by tomorrow, I suggest we declare > > >> this our M1, and reopen the code for ongoing development. > > >> > > > > > > Does it make sense to rebuilding M1 with debug info in class files > > > included? > > > > Yes, if you could upload a new set of builds at the current repository > > state that would be great. That would include the debug info now, and > > no additional functional change. We can look at refining the JRE vs JDK > > info after M1. > > > > OK. I'm going to create snapshots for r533500. > Done > -Stepan. > -- Stepan Mishura Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
