Re: Compilation Error with gcc 3.2 and glibc 2.2.3
I wrote: > If you want to build glibc with gcc 3.x, you *must* use > glibc-2.2.5 (plus our latest developerWorks patches) or > later. Oh, and you must also use a recent binutils version (probably best the one we recommend on devWorks), or else you'll run into weird problems when building glibc as well ... Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compilation Error with gcc 3.2 and glibc 2.2.3
Ulrich, Ok, that's pretty clear. :) Figures I would spend untold hours of CPU time trying to do something unsupported. :( Thanks for the guidance. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Ulrich Weigand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Compilation Error with gcc 3.2 and glibc 2.2.3 Mark Post wrote: >I'm trying to compile glibc 2.2.3 with gcc 3.2. This is most definitely *not* supported, for a variety of reasons. If you want to build glibc with gcc 3.x, you *must* use glibc-2.2.5 (plus our latest developerWorks patches) or later. (Note that this is not s390-specific, it won't work on other platforms either. In fact, those gcc/glibc incompatibilities were one of the major reasons why distributions took so long to pick up gcc 3.x ...) Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compilation Error with gcc 3.2 and glibc 2.2.3
Mark Post wrote: >I'm trying to compile glibc 2.2.3 with gcc 3.2. This is most definitely *not* supported, for a variety of reasons. If you want to build glibc with gcc 3.x, you *must* use glibc-2.2.5 (plus our latest developerWorks patches) or later. (Note that this is not s390-specific, it won't work on other platforms either. In fact, those gcc/glibc incompatibilities were one of the major reasons why distributions took so long to pick up gcc 3.x ...) Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
