From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
To: ross.s@ihug.co.nz (Ross Smith)
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Pretty please with sugar on the top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:06:00 -0000
Message-id: <200011132304.PAA21211@toledo.synopsys.com>
References: <3A106326.4F2E54B6@ihug.co.nz>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00577.html

> > Now that glibc 2.2 is out the door, would it be too much too ask
> > if we could have a gcc 2.95.3 that can compile c++ programs?
> > (See the glibc FAQ questions 2.34-2.35 for reference)

Ross Smith writes:
> What FAQ? The glibc home page says 2.1.2 is the latest release, and the
> FAQ there hasn't been updated since 2.0.5c.

The FAQ in the distribution seems to be later than the FAQ on the web.

By the way, can any glibc experts explain the reasons why the changes
are needed?  (It seems that the patch to fix libstc++/libc compatibility
mostly seems to just turn a lot of _IO_fpos_t types into _IO_off_t
types, and _IO_fpos64_t into _IO_off64_t).