diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | FAQ | 21 |
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/FAQ b/FAQ index 5fe4be493c..df3261170d 100644 --- a/FAQ +++ b/FAQ @@ -215,8 +215,15 @@ may not have all the features GNU libc requires. The current releases of egcs (1.0.3 and 1.1.1) should work with the GNU C library (for powerpc see question 1.5; for ARM see question 1.6). -{ZW} Due to problems with C++ exception handling, you must use EGCS (any -version) to compile version 2.1 of GNU libc. See question 2.8 for details. +While the GNU CC should be able to compile glibc it is nevertheless adviced +to use EGCS. Comparing the sizes of glibc on Intel compiled with a recent +EGCS and gcc 2.8.1 shows this: + + text data bss dec hex filename +egcs-2.93.10 862897 15944 12824 891665 d9b11 libc.so +gcc-2.8.1 959965 16468 12152 988585 f15a9 libc.so + +Make up your own decision. 1.3. When I try to compile glibc I get only error messages. @@ -738,15 +745,19 @@ libc. It doesn't matter what compiler you use to compile your program. For glibc 2.1, we've chosen to do it the other way around: libc.so explicitly provides the EH functions. This is to prevent other shared -libraries from doing it. You must therefore compile glibc 2.1 with EGCS. -Again, it doesn't matter what compiler you use for your programs. +libraries from doing it. + +{UD} Starting with glibc 2.1.1 you can compile glibc with gcc 2.8.1 or +newer since we have explicitly add references to the functions causing the +problem. But you nevertheless should use EGCS for other reasons +(see question 1.2). 2.9. How can I compile gcc 2.7.2.1 from the gcc source code using glibc 2.x? {AJ} There's only correct support for glibc 2.0.x in gcc 2.7.2.3 or later. -But you should get at least gcc 2.8.1 or egcs 1.0.2 (or later versions) +But you should get at least gcc 2.8.1 or egcs 1.1 (or later versions) instead. |