linux-mips-fnet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ...

To: "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@oss.sgi.com>, "Jay Carlson" <nop@nop.com>
Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ...
From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad@ltc.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:22:05 -0400
Cc: <linux-mips@fnet.fr>, <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
References: <20001014170928.B6499@bacchus.dhis.org> <KEEOIBGCMINLAHMMNDJNGECBCAAA.nop@nop.com> <20001014181257.C6499@bacchus.dhis.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
To: "Jay Carlson" <nop@nop.com>
Cc: "Jay Carlson" <nop@place.org>; <linux-mips@fnet.fr>;
<linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ...


> On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 12:11:39PM -0400, Jay Carlson wrote:
>
> > > Actually I'm trying to kill this entire naming problem by getting all
> > > patches back to the respective maintainers.  Result:  no pending
patches
> > > for cvs binutils, only tiny ones for glibc-current and egcs-current.
> >
> > What's going to happen to glibc 2.0.6?  I suspect the embedded people
are
> > going to be stuck using it until we figure out how to trim down the
binary
> > size of 2.2.
>
> Which why I guess we still have to maintain it for a while or even come
> up with some alternative small libc.

I am fine with using 2.0.6 for a long time, at least until some markedly
superior option is available.

Regards,
Brad

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>