> Svante Signell wrote:
> > Regarding the question whether egcs or gcc is going to be the default
> > compiler is important, regardless of building for i386 or i686. The
> > glibc spec file (2.1.2-17) had egcs hardcoded in, causing the library
> > to fail install, see earlier postings!! It installed OK with
> > gcc-2.95.2!. Furthermore, installing gcc completely erases egcs, so you
> > have to choose!!
>
> I've complained about egcs hardcoding to Red Hat, and submitted reports
> to bugzilla for specific packages. The last I heard on the subject was
> that Red Hat would continue to use egcs until they could build everything
> with gcc. The kernel is a problem as the inline assembly needs to have
> constraint changes to produce the required machine code...or so I've heard.
I think the compiler docs say this:
2.0 kernels do not build well with egcs because of some bad coding
practices that now don't work.
2.2 kernels do not build well with gcc 2.95, similar reasons.
Its partly connected with evolving standards.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
