Re: support of older compilers

[Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk>]

On 6 Nov 2004, Clayton Weaver stated:
>>You found a compiler bug, so you reported
>>it as a bug against
>>glibc?
> 
> You don't think it's possible that a glibc bug
> could cause unexpected behavior in a gcc that is
> using the glibc libraries?

Naturally it is; it's even fairly common if you're using a very old
compiler or a very old glibc (although support for libc5 is gone as of
GCC-3.4.)

> I don't know whether glibc-2.3.2 *really*
> had the bug or whether gcc-2.95.3 had some
> dodgy workaround for a bug in earlier glibc2
> versions that fixing a bug in glibc-2.3.2
> then exposed.

That's unlikely.

I just doubt that a bug in string concatenation could be chalked up to
glibc, is all.

> So users arrive at a relatively stable compiler, they stop upgrading
> and use that.

They're of course free to do that, if they don't mind not getting access
to new stuff in the new releases; at least if they're working in C
(anyone compiling C++ code with GCC<3.x is a little strange, in my
opinion).

-- 
`Random line noise picked up from an RS432 cable hung in front of a faulty
 radar transmitter. ' --- Greg Hennessy on sendmail.cf