> I guess if you were one of the "everybody" needing "everything" on
> "every" environment, instead of you needing what you need in your
> environment, you might think differently!

*angry, grumpy, pissed off, GNU-hating distro maintainer enters the chat*

Yeah, and if you were one of those people who has spent the last 14 MONTHS banging your head on the wall trying to *properly* bootstrap gcc, and to *ensure* that the bootstrap is correct--while still having no clue after all this time if it is *really* correct now, or only *pretending* to be correct for a while, until the next time something screws up with the weirdest error messages imaginable, showing that it's not--YOU might feel differently.

Just like the other day when I thought it would be a simple matter to add 'D' language to my distro. I'm on GCC 9, switching the distro and build scripts over to GCC 12, and thought "hey, I'll take advantage of GCC 9 while it's here to build GDC9, then bootstrap GDC12 with it, and I'll have D also, finally! hooray!" Yeah, right. 

SOMETHING somewhere is wrong/misconfigured with the bootstrap I guess, because on the second build of GCC12 it dies with some ridiculous libatomic-related error message, and nobody on the mailing list has any idea what it could possibly be I guess, since nobody responded to my email. 

My response: just delete D from --enable-languages and forget I ever heard about it, because I'm definitely not spending ANOTHER year trying to figure out this junk.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have GCC, but it is HORRIBLY DESIGNED SOFTWARE. As is GLIBC. Matter of fact, pretty much everything out of GNU is the most overcomplicated and/or painful junk imaginable. (gnulib anyone?) And don't tell me it has to be this way. I know that it doesn't. 

The freshly-generated manual pages for GCC 12.2 are attached to this email, for OP.

Dave