DMD 1.024 and 2.008 releases

[Walter Bright]

Markus Dittrich wrote:
> It looks like the only symbol requiring >=glibc-2.4 in the binary is
> 
> [dittrich at despina] readelf -s ./dmd.bin | grep GLIBC_2.4
>     69: 00000000    70 FUNC    GLOBAL DEFAULT  UND __stack_chk_fail at GLIBC_2.4 (10)
> 
> which probably means that you used "-fstack-protector" or sth similar to compile the
> dmd source. Without it, the requirement for a newer glibc may actually go away. 
> Otherwise, dmd.bin could also be distributed as a static binary at the cost of a (much)
> larger filesize. 

I didn't use that switch. Hmm, do both 1.0 and 2.0 dmd's have this problem?