This is the mail archive of the
libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: DWARF EH for PPC
- To: dwarf@polaris.net (Dale Scheetz)
- Subject: Re: DWARF EH for PPC
- From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:31:08 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: drow@cs.cmu.edu, libc-hacker@cygnus.com
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, libm.so in glibc 2.0.7 still exports register_frame:
> > >
> > > The Debian release called 2.0.7u was constructed from the 2.0.7-pre6
> > > tarballs and originally had the __register_frame_info symbol defined in
> > > libm. Starting with release 2.0.7u-6 this symbol was removed using the
> > > patch that was applied to the 2.1 pre-release.
> > >
> >
> > So Debian applied a patch for glibc 2.1 on glibc 2.0? That explains
> > why Debian's glibc 2.0 is different from the real glibc 2.0.
> >
> The "real" glibc 2.0 is different than any of the other "real" glibc 2.0
> pre-releases. Are you suggesting that this behaviour is correct?
>
I am not suggesting anything. I got different rerults on glibc 2.0
than Debian since Debian uses some glibc 2.1 patches on glibc 2.0.
That is all. I was trying to explain why those frame functionas were
in my libstdc++.so under my glibc 2.0.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)