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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: patch lost?

From: David Mosberger <davidm at napali dot hpl dot hp dot com>
To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Cc: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com, Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>,libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:04:09 -0800
Subject: Re: patch lost?
References: <200411300046.iAU0kXf2024434@napali.hpl.hp.com><200411300305.iAU35ep9016243@magilla.sf.frob.com><16812.1291.576553.656236@napali.hpl.hp.com><20041130055443.GA4867@lucon.org>
Reply-to: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com

>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:54:43 -0800, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:

  HJ> I am afraid that there is another gcc bug which has to be fixed
  HJ> first:

  HJ> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18153

  HJ> My patch is still waiting for review. Otherwise, many DSOs from
  HJ> glibc will depend on libunwind.so.7 which isn't used at all.

That's no reason to not apply the glibc patch, no?  At the moment,
it's simply impossible to build glibc with an unwind-enabled GCC.

	--david

Follow-Ups:
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: H. J. Lu

References:
- patch lost?
  - From: David Mosberger
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: David Mosberger
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: H. J. Lu

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