Update GCC from 2.95.2: 2.95.3, 3.1.1, or 3.2?

[Jerry McBride]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:58:41 -0400 Tim Wunder <tim at thewunders.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 19 September 2002 09:50 pm, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > If you suspect your gcc or glibc  is broken in some manor... what makes you
> > think you can recompiled a new version and produce a correctly working
> > copy?
> >
> 
> I've compiled gcc-2.95.3 and it works. And the gcc compile process is s'posed 
> to be smart enough to account for "broken" gcc's. It compiles the new gcc 
> with the old gcc in stage1. In stage 2, gcc is rebuilt with the gcc built in 
> stage 1, in stage 3, gcc is built with the new gcc in stage2. Stage2 and 
> stage3 files are then compared. 
> 

And it would generate a correctly working gcc, even if your glibc had a bug in
it?Pretty slick. 8*)

> > My advice is... go back to the distribution cd, re-install all that you
> > suspect is broken. 

-- 

******************************************************************************
                     Registered Linux User Number 185956
          http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=linux
             Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
    9:49pm  up 191 days,  2:58,  6 users,  load average: 1.44, 1.43, 1.30