This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 08:02:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
--On Monday, August 05, 2002 10:57:58 AM -0400 Daniel Jacobowitz
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
> 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 email@example.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com