This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility
- To: Jeffrey A Law <law at upchuck dot cygnus dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility
- From: Jamie Lokier <egcs at tantalophile dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:49:24 +0200
- Cc: egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- References: <m10VIdz-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org> <29123.923599928@upchuck>
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > Or they can use the latest glibc 2.0 via CVS. I am willing to set up a
> > ftp site with tar files.
> What am I not being clear about?
>
> This kind of binary breakage is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if you
> put a new glibc somewhere. Breaking binaries like that patch did is not
> acceptable.
The patch does *not break binaries*.
Installing EGCS and using it to compile new applications does
*not break binaries*.
But recompiling some shared libraries using EGCS with the patch breaks some
binaries. Is it unreasonable to request a user upgrades to the latest
Glibc 2.0, or any Glibc 2.1 before doing this?
-- Jamie