REPLY: 2:240/12 5d59a741   
   MSGID: 2:280/464.113 5d7140b7   
   CHRS: UTF-8 4   
   Hallo Gerrit!   
      
    GK> Even more blasphemy: Its license which is more free than GCC's?   
    GK> More standards compliant? Better error messages? Less complex   
    GK> codebase?   
      
   So say the LLVM people.  I noticed a claim that glibc could be successfully   
   compiled with clang, albiet with an unmentioned number of patches.  I might   
   try that and see if it is so.  Also I noted your eglibc (Debian abandonware)   
   was compiled with gcc.  Given the age of your software on that target, i686 if   
   I am not mistaken, what are the odds any of that would actually compile,   
   especially using a clang of that vintage?   
      
   You've piqued my curiousity and I might just try this out soon so I can see   
   for myself.  I already know they don't support this target so I'll have to use   
   something more generic.  :::sigh:::   
      
   Het leven is goed,   
   Maurice   
      
   ... Huil niet om mij, ik heb vi.   
   --- GNU bash, version 5.0.11(1)-release (x86_64-silvermont-linux-gnu)   
    * Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint - Ladysmith BC, Canada (2:280/464.113)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/2 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/0 226/17 227/114 229/354   
   SEEN-BY: 229/426 452 616 1014 240/5832 249/206 317 400 280/464 5003   
   SEEN-BY: 292/854 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200 396/45 423/120 633/280   
   SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 2452/250 3828/7 5020/545   
   PATH: 280/464 229/426