robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Jun 7 22:18:58 PDT 2007
On Thursday June 7 2007 06:51:39 pm Kevin Day wrote:
> As I was working out problems with uClibc-0.9.29, I discovered that
> gcc-4.2.0 is not only more stable than the gcc-4.1.x series, but also
> had fewer problems that the gcc-3.4.6.
> It may not be worth rushing it in at this point, but it is very much
> worth considering.
Last time I looked at a GCC snapshot I noticed they added uClibc support. I'm
not sure if it's in gcc-4.2 or gcc-4.3. Binutils, and GDB, should do the same
eventually. GCC has the master copy of the top-level makefile (and
libiberty), and other packages sync to GCC from time to time.
The majority of the gcc-4.2 differences I noticed were better, more specific,
warning flags. I didn't see why it's qualified for a minor version number
change. From what I see on google, it doesn't look like gcc-4.2 breaks any
packages. GCC-4.2 also has improves "combined tree" support, and now it
bootstraps by default.
Glibc-2.6 does break some packages. Glibc-2.5 doesn't have great linuxthreads
support, so I'm strongly considering disabling libc threads for Linux-2.4,
and adding gnu's portable threads package. The alternatives are not great...
like using linuxthreads-snapshots, which are not maintained well, or patch
Linux-2.4 for nptl, which is also not maintained well. Using PTH would be
more stable. There are a few architectures that disable threading in Glibc,
so it should be reasonably supported.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the hlfs-dev