Re: [PLUG] RedHat 7.1 glibc2.1 Backward compat - revisited

[Jason Costomiris <jcostom@jasons.org>]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:35:26PM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
: Um... that's funny, since binaries built with NetBSD's in-tree
: gcc (egcs-2.91.66) and the optional toolchain gcc (gcc 2.95.3) both
: seem to work just fine together on my NetBSD system.

Same or different releases of libstdc++?  That's the rub.  Statically
linking your libstdc++ into the code?  That's another way around the 
problem.

: I'm going to complain more about RedHat's not caring that the Free
: Software Foundation developers actively discouraged distribution
: of 2.96, 

Let's see, RedHat bought Cygnus.  Isn't Cygnus the very same gang of
people that the FSF empowered to take their experimental compiler,
egcs and turn that into the mainstream gcc development version - the way
to gcc 3.0?

: going so far as to ask RedHat *not* to do it, as it would
: break compatibility with everything else (including the kernel they
: shipped with their operating system), and they went ahead with it
: anyway. I'm going to complain that, having done this, they aren't
: exactly doing much to support the wacky gcc they included in their
: release.

You mean like maintain the code, and fix bugs in it until there's 
gcc 3.0?  True, at one point in time, it did not compile the kernel, but
they included kgcc to do that.  Today, it compiles kernels just fine 
thanks.

: > Nevermind the fact that the RH gcc 2.96 is more standards compliant
: > than any shipping gcc out there. Nevermind that the RH gcc 2.96
: > has fewer compiler bugs than the other gcc releases out there.
: 
: I'm also going to complain that those two statements are patently
: untrue. With regard to the first, in general standards do not make
: truth, and in particular the C++ breakage you allude to above is
: quite the opposite. 

So, supporting the ISO C++ standards in ways that other gcc's do not is
bad?  Wait a minute, you wouldn't work for Microsoft, would you?

: With regard to the second, I'd challenge you
: to make a list of bugs in the two releases. 

You're the one asserting that the RH compiler is more buggy, so that's
on you to compile such a list.


-- 
Jason Costomiris <><           |  Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org  |  http://www.jasons.org/ 
          Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
                    My account, My opinions.


______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -      http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  -  http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug