This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: typeof woes in symbol renaming, or glibc x gcc
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>,"gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"jakub at redhat dot com" <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:54:44 -0400
- Subject: Re: typeof woes in symbol renaming, or glibc x gcc
- References: <orhehgktcd.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <27240000.1030577651@warlock.codesourcery.com>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:34:11PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >Does the fact that the upcoming glibc 2.3 won't be built properly
> >without this patch in GCC, so every GNU/Linux vendor that adopts GCC
> >3.2 and glibc 2.3 will probably install this patch themselves, help
> >get the patch accepted for 3.2.1?
>
> Well, OK.
>
> But the GNU/Linux vendors ought to work to avoid this situation; forcing
> potentially destabilizing changes on the overall GCC community isn't
> the right thing to do.
GNU/Linux vendors haven't got a choice. Glibc and GCC tend to be
loosely tied together in version requirements. By nature of their
schedules, glibc releases tend to be fresher than GCC releases; for
instance, 2.3 has TLS support which I noticed Red Hat has ported the
GCC 3.3 patches to 3.2 for.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer