Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

--On Monday, August 05, 2002 10:57:58 AM -0400 Daniel Jacobowitz 
<drow@mvista.com> wrote:

> 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.
I think we're all in violent agreement.  Even on older systems, though,
requiring --enable-threads and such makes sense -- it's just that what
you get won't necessarily be compatible with what you get on a newer
system.

--
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com