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: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Subject: Re: GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 09:52:00 -0700
- Cc: william <william at zh dot t2-design dot com>,GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <3BAEF6E5.B74A7CAE@zh.t2-design.com> <3BAEFC02.77DE2018@unitus.it>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 11:25:22AM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>
> > What does it mean?GCC-3.0.1 can't compile glibc-2.2.4
>
> No, it can't, unfortunately.
> Neither 2.95.3 or any other officially releasead GCC is completely ok, for
> that matter.
> To the best of my knowldedge you may:
> 1- Wait for the first 3.0.x/2.2.x couple certified as compatible (a couple
> of months away?)
> 2- Apply a couple of patches to 2.95.3 (see, f..i,
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg01985.html ) or download a 2.95.4
> snapshot (or wait for 2.95.4 itself)
> 3- Use 2.96-RH
>
> (Personally, I chose 2- and everything went fine)
>
> If someone in the know (f.i., H.J. Lu, A. Jaeger, J. Jelinek) would like to
> post an update on this obnoxious issue we - the users of both those GNU
> packages - would all be very grateful!
>
Jakub's change is almost ok to me. My only objection is dlopening
libgcc_s.so.1. I don't think it should be included unless it has
been verified to work as intended. But it seems noone has tested if
it works when the ABI of libgcc_s.so.1 changes, which is the main
purpose of dlopening libgcc_s.so.1, and someone believes the ABI change
of libgcc_s.so.1 which dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 is trying to address is
very unlikely to happen. Given those, I suggest
1. Check in Jakub's change, excluding dlopening libgcc_s.so.1. Do a
proper dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 later when necessary. Or
2. Check if dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 works, then check in the patch
with a working dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 scheme.
H.J.