This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 07:22:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I see.
>
> Are you aware that GCC is moving towards creating a shared libgcc?
>
> Why, then, should glibc people take over the creation of this shared
> library for GNU/Linux systems? The GCC maintainers are going to have
> to face this problem themselves, probably in a far more complicated
> way since we don't care just about GNU/Linux.
The problem is we, Ulrich and I, don't believe gcc will do it right
for Linux in time. Very few people have the experiences of maintaining
a shared libary which is kept binary compatible with binaries compiled
years ago.
> > On any other system, you may change libstdc++ API and C++ ABI without
> > breaking the existing binaries.
>
> What about rebuilding C++ shared libraries with an ABI-incompatible
> GCC? Do you claim this works on all platforms other than GNU/Linux?
My scheme should work since it encodes the C library API, the libstdc++
API and the C++ compiler ABI in the soname of libstdc++.so.
> I find it hard to believe.
Try it.
>
> >> more often on GNU/Linux precisely because libc isn't always compiled
> >> by the compiler someone who installed their own version of GCC uses.
>
> > The Linux C library is the only C library I know to use the frame based
> > exception in gcc.
>
> What I mean is that the problem occurs more often on GNU/Linux because
> libc also carries the symbols GCC EH depends upon. However, I believe
> it should affect any other system when you link together shared
> libraries created with ABI-incompatible versions of GCC.
>
It is only a problem for Linux because it happens to libc.so. If it
is something else, we can deal with it some other easy way.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)