This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 05:16:49PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote: > > AIX is also an OS (like GNU/Linx) that has separate "ownership" of > C runtime and compiler (though this is not true for other language > runtime/compilers offered on AIX). IBM's C compiler is offered on > platforms besides AIX. We learned early along that the > low-level function (found in libgcc in this case) is best maintained > by the platform, since the platform is ultimately responsible for > the ABI in the users' view -- not the compiler. This is even true for > the C++/thread exception handling work; the compiler team came to > us and we did the work to come up with a design that maintained > source and binary compatibility in our runtime. Yes, the compiler > determines a lot of things basic to the total ABI, but the platform > loader/library is where the "rubber meets the road" and that what > this code in libgcc truly covers. > > I see the same situation applies here -- even more so, since gcc > operates in places without shared libs or glibc at all. What I see > is that the platforms need to assume ownership of this, but gcc > needs to document the things it needs to see from it, and only > the things it needs to see, and leave the rest to the platform- > specific version of libgcc. Maybe the gcc team will "pick up" ownership > for platforms that cannot maintain it themselves, but trying to > maintain all of them is something I would not recommend. Thanks for your eloquent explanation. I agree with you almost 100%. > > This is just opinion based on similar practical experience; I am still > learning to understand H. J. Lu's idea and so cannot comment on > it. > My idea is very similar, if not identical, to yours. H.J.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |