This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Cc: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Ryan Arnold <rsa at us dot ibm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:17:20 +0200
- Subject: Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- References: <1371494971 dot 16968 dot 21574 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20130617193649 dot 7B5872C08D at topped-with-meat dot com> <1371503900 dot 16968 dot 21902 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20130619224234 dot 5AC132C10E at topped-with-meat dot com> <1371733830 dot 964 dot 1089 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20130620230930 dot 6F21E2C135 at topped-with-meat dot com> <1371775236 dot 964 dot 3432 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <51C48A96 dot 9070606 at twiddle dot net> <20130621174710 dot GQ6123 at two dot firstfloor dot org> <51C4A3D7 dot 2030308 at twiddle dot net>
> Certainly it is. Consider the following example, built on F19 (glibc 2.17) and
> run on F18 (glibc 2.16):
>
> #include <time.h>
> void *x = clock_nanosleep;
> int main() { return 0; }
>
> $ ./z1
> ./z1: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.17' not found (required by ./z1)
>
> Given that we've used sensible names for our versions, I think that error
> message is crystal clear.
Ok. So AFAIK the assert failure can only happen with the new generic
initializer, as pthread_mutexattr_settype always rejects any types
it doesn't know about.
So there are three options I see:
1. stay with the assert failures
2. add the new symbol versions (so that the error above is displayed)
3. remove the generic initializer.
I personally would prefer 1. or 3. over 2. 2. seems quite intrusive
to me, as it will cause quite a bit more failures in practice.
I think losing the generic initializer isn't a too big loss.
Opinions?
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.