1 |
14.02.2013, 12:10, "Michael Haubenwallner" <haubi@g.o>: |
2 |
> Another reason to avoid glibc on proprietary Unix systems is supportability: |
3 |
> Unix vendors unlikely would support such setups, so even when there's a bug |
4 |
> in their kernel, we'd be on our own. Same basically stands for binutils. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Example: Currently I'm working with AIX kernel developers to nail down why a |
7 |
> (quite large) C++ executable built with (my old stable snapshot of) Prefix' |
8 |
> gcc-4.2.4 does not start on aix7.1 - it does not even enter main(), while it |
9 |
> works on aix5.3 and aix6.1. They tried to close the report when they heard of |
10 |
> gcc, but continued when they were told that gcc just generates assembler code |
11 |
> subsequently processed by their native binutils. |
12 |
|
13 |
Out of curiosity: how does glibc prevent you from using native binutils? |
14 |
|
15 |
-- |
16 |
Regards, |
17 |
Konstantin |