On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>
> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the best
> one but at least is sane.
>
> Current toolchain is just to get a working version. I know that ansel
2010/1/14 pancake :
> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
gcc is required unless one doesn't want to fuck with each source code
unfortunately. Obviously glibc is only used when it cannot be avoided,
otherwise my current preference is uclibc.
> Tcc and dietlibc are usable
Jimmy Tang wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the best
one but at least is sane.
Current toolchain is just to get a working version. I
2010/1/15 Jimmy Tang :
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
>> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>>
>> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the best
>> one but at least is sane.
>>
>> Current toolchain is just to get a work
cd /; tar ztf package.tar.gz | xargs rm
;)
2010/1/15 Anselm R Garbe :
> 2010/1/15 Jimmy Tang :
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:42:02PM +0100, pancake wrote:
>>> I would prefer to drop gcc, glibc and all the shit from gnu.
>>>
>>> Tcc and dietlibc are usable solutions and maybe the code is not the be
