From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) Cc: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: An important patch for egcs 1.0.1 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:42:00 -0000 Message-id: <199802151310.NAA24410@quickstep.stanford.edu> References: <98021317220301.01807@z2.n2480.f898.fidonet.org> X-SW-Source: 1998-02/msg00716.html >>>>> "H" == H J Lu 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