This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils

--On Monday, August 05, 2002 10:57:58 AM -0400 Daniel Jacobowitz <> 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
<> 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

Mark Mitchell      
CodeSourcery, LLC  

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]