This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libio patch
- To: drepper at ipd dot info dot uni-karlsruhe dot de
- Subject: Re: libio patch
- From: hjl at lucon dot org (H.J. Lu)
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
>
> hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) writes:
>
> > 1. The libio is too old. Ulrich, I have sent you a patch for
> > libio in glibc 2.1 a few days ago. I can resend them to you
> > if you want. My patch supports libc 5, libg++, egcs, glibc 2.0
> > and glibc 2.1.
>
> I have your patches and I also integrated them mostly but I'm not at
> all convinced this ugly mechanism to handle thunks is good. I don't
> want to carry the load of supporting systems without thunks around.
> We shall make a clear cut. Nobody should use glibc-2.0 to 2.0.4 and
> we can always make a patch set available for libc5 (if wanted at all).
libc 5 won't use thunks and gcc configured for
libc5 won't have thunks as default. But it
is fine since they are compatible. The only
problem is glibc 2.0.4 or below. I can
take those out.
>
> > 2. _G_HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE_IO is checked, but not defined. I
> > changed it to _G_HAVE_GLIBC since I only implemented long
> > double output using glibc.
>
> Bad idea. I introduced the general symbol since I intend get long
> double I/O working with other systems as well. Many more systems will
> support this i future since ISO C 9X will define it.
>
> Beside (I haven't tried to compile the egcs libio) you seem to assume
> that the configure script shall generate a _G_config.h file for glibc
> based systems. This is not want I have in mind. All those magic
> symbols we need are defined in the _G_config.h file which comes with
> glibc. So _G_HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE_IO *is* defined is needed.
I don't want to change too much. I have enough trouble
to maintain my currect patch. It is not easy not to generate
_G_config.h without majar changes.
>
> > 5. We have to support libio in libc which has an incompatible
> > vtable thunks support with g++. That means we have to provide
> > the incompatible part of libio.
>
> As said above, I don't think this shall be part of the package. See
> how much ugly code this adds and just because of some old systems.
Fine with me.
Should I wait for the next libio or make a new patch to get rid of
the mixed vtable thunks support?
H.J.