REPLY: 47708.linux@1:103/705 22c37a8d   
   MSGID: 2:280/464.113 5e5d8bac   
   CHRS: UTF-8 4   
   Hallo Rob!   
      
    RS> I'd bet the farm that it'll out live you and me!   
      
   Speaking for myself, that ain't saying much since I am in my so-called   
   twilight years.   
      
    RS> If you're building clang from source, then yes, you'd need a   
    RS> compiler to do that.   
      
   Right.  Same with gcc which I expect to be upgrading soon (9.3.0).   
      
    RS> And I wonder why you'd want to.   
      
   A number of reasons.  Mostly it is a very good distraction for me and has   
   proven itself over the decades to be good exersize for the brain.  For sure I   
   am not in it for the money unless you count the money I've spent over the   
   years.   
      
    RS> Got something against gcc?   
      
   The exact opposite.  The idea of a purely clang built linux-gnu has me   
   intrigued though and I'd like to see one in action, which means I'll have to   
   build it myself given that nobody else appears to be able to, including   
   mandriva which I believe has made misleading statements over this very issue.   
      
   Can you say otherwise and (more importantly) prove it?   
      
   Het leven is goed,   
   Maurice   
      
   ... Huil niet om mij, ik heb vi.   
   --- GNU bash, version 5.0.11(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)   
    * Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint - Ladysmith BC, Canada (2:280/464.113)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/0 227/114 229/101 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/452 616 1014 240/5832 249/206 317 400 280/464 5003 288/100   
   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 5020/545   
   PATH: 280/464 229/426