This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?

On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 03:41:28PM -0700, Justin Guyett wrote:
> rh gcc 2.96 snapshot.  Does the 2.95.4 snapshot used by debian have those
> two patches in it?

I believe they have the atexit patch, it is in CVS after all.
Dunno about the __dso_handle exporting patch without which atexit won't work

> Would gcc 3.0 with static libgcc_s work for recompiling glibc?

You can surely recompile it, but it won't be binary compatible.
__frame_state_for will be missing, plus glibc won't export the needed new
__register_frame_info_bases etc. symbols, so if you mixed such glibc and
some G++ 3.0 compiled library, you'd use two different registration points
for shared libraries, one in glibc, one in probably libstdc++. So things
would or would not work properly depending on the particular library order
(e.g. try dlopening a library written in C++ from a C only main program and
throw exceptions through sort).

GLIBC definitely needs a __frame_state_for implementation, plus its
interaction with needs to be decided (see


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]