3 ms·
What is sad with glibc: unable to compile it with an alternative C compiler (and the binutils). Worse, it even requires a recent gcc then only a c++ gcc have a
by sylware 5y ago
What is sad with glibc: unable to compile it with an alternative C compiler (and the binutils). Worse, it even requires a recent gcc then only a c++ gcc have a chance to compile it (aka cannot use gcc 4.7.4, the last real C gcc, I don't think it can generate PIE code though, only PIC).
I did fork 2.33 for x86_64 as an assembly(AT&T syntax) project. I keep the glibc only because the video games are linked to it, until they properly do "libdl" their system symbols, and then should start to work with alternative C runtimes AND more recent glibc (due to GNU symbol versioning). I am lurking on musllib for open source software.
And really, those super fast changing GNU symbol versions breaking distros for recent binaries is really a pain when you play video games, this is shooting linux gaming in the foot (crooksoft must be happy).