This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,"Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:57:58 -0400
- Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
- References: <20020805072513.A21121@twiddle.net> <50300000.1028557886@warlock.codesourcery.com>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 07:31:26AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, August 05, 2002 07:25:13 AM -0700 Richard Henderson
> <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 08:45:20AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >>As long as there is a configure option to build anyway. That's an
> >>awful lot of released systems you're talking about not building on!
> >
> >So? If you're upgrading gcc, you can upgrade binutils too.
>
> Agreed. On a system which supports the configury options discussed, they
> should be used.
I agree with both of these statements, but as I undertstand it that's
not the whole issue. Jakub included a glibc version in his list of
necessary infrastructure to get ABI compliance, and upgrading glibc on
a running system is very different from upgrading the compiler and
linker. Requiring glibc 2.2.5 to build a native compiler is not OK.
How necessary it is I don't remember at the moment.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer