This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4
- To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>
- Subject: Re: GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4
- From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- Date: 02 Oct 2001 09:38:51 -0700
- Cc: hjl at lucon dot org, jakub at redhat dot com, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20010924103415.B17065@lucon.org><s3ik7yoz31v.fsf@soliton.wins.uva.nl> <20010925102111.B9236@lucon.org><200109252357.f8PNvs306972@delius.kettenis.local><20010925171933.A16536@lucon.org><200109260924.f8Q9OFb07011@delius.kettenis.local><20010926055650.A25384@devserv.devel.redhat.com><20010926132745.B1529@lucon.org> <20011001102832.A12158@lucon.org><20011002122016.I3251@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz><20011002083908.B31936@lucon.org><200110021618.f92GI3000407@delius.kettenis.local>
- Reply-To: drepper at cygnus dot com (Ulrich Drepper)
Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl> writes:
> That's something for Ulrich to decide. I remember him saying that he
> didn't want the glibc release schedule dictated by the GCC release
> schedule, and that he preferred to use the unwinder in libgcc_s.so.1
> if it's available.
Correct. The DSO gets dlopen()ed only for some ill-fated old
applications. New ones won't have the problem. There is no reason to
introduce a source-code dependencies (even if it might improve
performance for those apps a bit). Just see it from this side: if
people don't like it they are more inclined to recompile their apps
and get it right. The only thing to be made sure is that libgcc can
actually be dlopened() (without RTLD_GLOBAL) and does not require some
magic loading. This is I think the case.
--
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------