Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility

[Zack Weinberg <zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu>]

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:57:56 -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>
>  In message <199904121315.JAA13984@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>you write:
>  > >True.  But we've made not attempt to make that setup work and have no
>  > >intention of making that setup work.
>  > 
>  > You may not have, but Mark, HJ, Ulrich and I spent about a month
>  > trying to fix exactly this setup.  The conclusion was that the patch
>  > you don't like was the best solution.
>The egcs project has never considered this kind of compatibility with
>gcc-2.7 compiled binaries a priority.
>
>Giving up compatibility with egcs itself to achieve compatibility with
>an outdated, pre-EH compiler from the FSF is not acceptable.  Sorry.

I've been arguing entirely from the point of view of the libc
project.  And there, `compatibility with an outdated, pre-EH compiler
from the FSF' is critical, because like it or not, >90% of Linux
installations are still using gcc 2.7.  Furthermore, this is no small
bug; if you install a libc compiled by gcc 2.7 over a system compiled
by egcs 1.0/1.1.[01], you hose the entire system.

Libc is in a somewhat unique position, in that we don't have to worry
about intersystem portability unless you count Hurd, but we do have to
make it work for all combinations of compiler, kernel, and source
package - even the ones you don't care to support.

I am not saying that egcs should necessarily cater to libc, but I
think you may be underestimating the magnitude of the problem we face
if you take the patch back out.

zw