(no subject)

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Mar 31 15:31:39 PST 2006

Archaic wrote these words on 03/31/06 17:19 CST:

> It is simply a matter of perspective. Technically, the patch isn't a
> gcc-3 patch, but rather a C standard compliance patch. I also agree the
> patch should be renamed to reflect its new purpose (i.e. fix compile
> errors with gcc-4) if for no other reason that mention of gcc3 will
> cause some confusion and support questions. The book has had errors in
> patch names before and this could easily be thought to be one of them by
> many.

On the flip side of this, couldn't it also be construed then, that
the patch is *not* required if you are for (whatever reason) using
GCC-3 to compile?

You wouldn't believe all the places our patches are. And the fact
that it is being renamed to represent a (some would call it an
untruth) less-than-technically-correct usage, is in my opinion worse
than worrying about somebody that doesn't understand what "required
patch" means.

As a compromise, perhaps it would be best to update the header
description to say that the patch is required for any version of GCC
greater than 3.whateveritis.x.

But to name it something it is not, in hopes that it *may* stifle
some confusion, is a bit of a stretch, IMHO.


rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux i686]
17:26:00 up 6 days, 6:03, 6 users, load average: 0.14, 0.10, 0.09

More information about the blfs-support mailing list