Svante Signell, on lun. 26 mars 2018 18:50:20 +0200, wrote: > I just saw: > https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/gcccvs?view=revision&revision=10084 > > This is really a large step BACK:
It's not a step back, it's just fixing something that is completely wrong. > Since you could issue that commit to _disable_ > gccgo for Hurd, what about committing to _enable_ gccgo for Hurd instead. Because that would take *way* more time to do, and my current priority is rather glibc. Samuel
