This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


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

Re: libio patch


> 
> 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.


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