This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: The remaining dubious symbols in libgcc-std.ver
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: The remaining dubious symbols in libgcc-std.ver
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:19:51 -0700
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at science dot uva dot nl>, "rth at redhat dot com" <rth at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:18:29PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, June 12, 2001 07:01:04 PM -0700 Zack Weinberg
> <zackw@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 06:39:11PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >> > I'll apply that change with the other libgcc.ver changes, which will
> >> > mean another bootstrap cycle, so all of those changes will go in very
> >> > late tonight.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >
> > The changes required to bump the soname were more invasive than I'd
> > expected (insert rant about code duplication in t-fragments here), so
> > if I could get another pair of eyes on this patch, please?
>
> I worry that we are being too clever. Would you mind just doing a
> lexical replacement of of `0' with `1' on the branch? The abstraction
> you're going for is definitely goodness, and your patch is fine for
> the mainline, but I'd be happier if we were just replacing `0' with `1'
> on the branch.
You might be interested to know that I did it this way because it was
easier to verify that I hadn't missed any instances of
@shlib_base_name@.so.0.
I'll do as you suggest.
--
zw I'm on a spaceship full of college students.
-- Martin "PCHammer" Rose