On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:58:41 -0400 Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 September 2002 09:50 pm, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > If you suspect your gcc or glibc is broken in some manor... what makes you
> > think you can recompiled a new version and produce a correctly working
> > copy?
> >
>
> I've compiled gcc-2.95.3 and it works. And the gcc compile process is s'posed
> to be smart enough to account for "broken" gcc's. It compiles the new gcc
> with the old gcc in stage1. In stage 2, gcc is rebuilt with the gcc built in
> stage 1, in stage 3, gcc is built with the new gcc in stage2. Stage2 and
> stage3 files are then compared.
>
And it would generate a correctly working gcc, even if your glibc had a bug in
it?Pretty slick. 8*)
> > My advice is... go back to the distribution cd, re-install all that you
> > suspect is broken.
--
******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=linux
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
9:49pm up 191 days, 2:58, 6 users, load average: 1.44, 1.43, 1.30
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
