https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Arsen Arsenović <arsen at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #57 from Arsen Arsenović <arsen at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #51)
> Again I do not do native compilation for linux. Do you understand? I do not
> native compile linux binaries. I always build linux binaries on windows
I do not see the relevance of this. You need to link and compile against some
libraries and headers whereever you compile. Just use older libraries and
headers.
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #49)
> I need to do Canadian compilation. I cannot install centos and I don't want
> eithert
Nor do you need to. This was said to point out that you can use quite old
systems to build GCC. Nothing about CentOS in particular is relevant.
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #50)
> How is that a nonsense hack? It just works by forcing the version to be
> stabilized as 2.34.
No, it doesn't. It happens to coincidentally work by removing a feature test
macro. The fact the result is non-obvious from the patch body corroborates
what I said.
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #53)
> This has nothing to do with forward compatibility. This is about satisfying
> C++ standard.
It has only to do with forwards compatibility. You're downgrading a library
and expecting it to work. It will not without forwards compatibility. Nobody
provides forwards compatibility for libraries for obvious reasons.
Please stop spamming the bug tracker now.
