> > Various people I associate with being senior in both glibc and gcc (people > > like Ulrich Drepper and Jeff Law) were involved in the compiler and glibc > > they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed. They did. > > to the temporary ABI in 2.95 first - whomever that was - I don't know, or > > on the gcc people who couldnt keep the ABI stable. > > This really is an affront on your side, twisting reality quite a bit - the I noticed you carefully deleted the rest of that paragraph. Perhaps people should look back in the archive and note why - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95? Jamie Lokier
- Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95? doctor
- Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95? Jakub Jelinek
- Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95? Michael Meding
- Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95? Horst von Brand
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Stefan Traby
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Alan Cox
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Marc Lehmann
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?t Alan Cox
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?t Marc Lehmann
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?t Alan Cox
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?t Marc Lehmann
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?t Igmar Palsenberg
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Richard Henderson
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Martin Dalecki
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Marc Lehmann
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Horst von Brand
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Marc Lehmann
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Harald Dunkel
- Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? Jes Sorensen
- Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?) Michael Peddemors