X-POP3-Rcpt: mlehmann AT universe DOT sgh-net DOT de
15 Jan 1998 08:56:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <linux AT bero-online DOT ml DOT org>
X-Sender: linux AT ufp DOT in-trier DOT de
To: Francis Vidal <francis AT cody DOT usls DOT edu>
cc: Beastium List <beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl>
Subject: Re: where to find libc 5.4.41
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980115091112.293A-100000@cody.usls.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980115085312.436A-100000@ufp.in-trier.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1383
Lines: 38

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Francis Vidal wrote:

> hello!
> 
> i've been searching sunsite and other sites for libc 5.4.41 but can't find
> it... any hints?

Why use something that outdated? If you want to stick with libc5, get libc
5.4.43 from ftp://ftp.yggdrasil.com/private/hjl/libc-5.4.43.tar.gz.
Alternatively, upgrade to libc6 by getting
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc-2.0.6.tar.gz and the files mentioned in
its documentation.

> btw, i compiled egcs-1.0.1 with the pgcc 1.0.1 patch
> successfuly on a pentium 200 MMX but i still used the old libraries
> supplied by redhat biltmore (4.1). if i re-compile the source again with
> the new libraries, will it improve in performance?

Simply installing the new libraries will improve performance for all apps.
The C library is a shared library, meaning its functions are not linked
into programs using it, rather, the programs call the functions stored in
the library itself.
The binary release of libc will, of course, not increase performance, as
it is not compiled with pgcc.

LLaP
bero

-- bero AT bero-online DOT ml DOT org - ICQ/UIN 6545964 - http://www.star-trek.ml.org/ --

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!"
                           -- Bill Gates, 1981
"Windows 95 needs at least 8 MB RAM."
                           -- Bill Gates, 1996
"Nobody will ever need Windows 95."
                           -- logical conclusion