Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)

[Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>]

   Sender: drepper@cygnus.com
   Cc: rth@twiddle.net, hjl@valinux.com, libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com,
      gcc@gcc.gnu.org
   Reply-To: drepper@cygnus.com (Ulrich Drepper)
   X-fingerprint: BE 3B 21 04 BC 77 AC F0  61 92 E4 CB AC DD B9 5A
   From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
   Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:04:50 -0700
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

   Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl> writes:

   > we should have verified that something like the DT_AUXILIARY thing
   > indeed works.

   I don't think there is much danger here.  I'm quite sure it works and
   if not, I can fix it easily.

I wasn't really questioning whether DT_AUXILIARY worked.  I'm worried
if the little schemes that we all think up here will work in the real
world, when people start mixing shared libraries and programs produced
by different compilers.  That was the big problem with the
__register_frame_info mess.  IMHO we have to allow for an extended
period of testing.

Mark