Re: An important patch for egcs 1.0.1

[Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@usa.net>]

>>>>> "H" == H J Lu <hjl@lucon.org> writes:

    H> egcs 1.0.1 miscompiles glibc, especially long double.

It's not obvious to me that just because 1.0.1 miscompiles glibc 2.x
the long double fix can't wait for 1.1.  If programs that use glibc
are miscompiled, that's much worse (although even then, if only
programs that use long double are affected, I'm not sure).  However,
most users do not compile glibc themselves; on the systems you
mentioned earlier (RedHat 5.0, Debian, SUSE) glibc comes as a
precompiled package.  I myself use RH5.0 and have never built glibc.

I think that one of the strengths of egcs has been and will continue
to be frequent releases, including *major* releases.  So, I'm eager to
see 1.1, with its many improvements; time we spend on 1.0.2 will (to
some extent) delay 1.1.  However, if the fixes are simple, my points
may be moot, and I don't pretend to pass judgement on the fixes
themselves.  So, this is not an argument not to put the fixes in; only
one about how we should determine what fixes are to go in.

    H> -- H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

-- 
Mark Mitchell		mmitchell@usa.net
Stanford University	http://www.stanford.edu