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]

Re: gcc 3.0.x/glibc 2.2.4 policy

To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0.x/glibc 2.2.4 policy
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:04:21 -0700
Cc: GNU libc hacker <libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
References: <hod768dxvq.fsf@gee.suse.de>

On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:26:17AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> 
> I've tested Jakub's patch and it worked fine for me on i686 with glibc
> compiled by GCC 3.1 CVS and by GCC 2.95.3.
> 
> So how should we continue?  I see the following alternatives if
> everybody agrees that Jakub's patch is the right solution:
> 
> - release 2.2.4 this week, add Jakub's patch to CVS and release a
>   2.2.5pre1 next week.  This would imply a release of 2.2.5 next month
>   or so.
> - Add Jakub's patch now

The latest Jakub's patch is a big step towards the right direction.
But I don't think it is enough. We haven't resolved the run-time vs.
link-time version check of libgcc_s.so.1 in gcc. After it is resolved,
Jakub's patch may have to be modified. Personally, I don't believe
dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 is needed. In practice, we gain next to nothing
by dlopening libgcc_s.so.1.

H.J.

References:
- gcc 3.0.x/glibc 2.2.4 policy
  - From: Andreas Jaeger

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