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 Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:57:58AM -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.
> How necessary it is I don't remember at the moment.

Necessary for eh.
If you don't upgrade glibc, you won't be able to run applications built by
others who use recent glibc (which is not about eh only, it is enough if
their program uses some function which was added only after glibc
you're using was released).
glibc 2.2.5+ is requirement when using gcc 3+ for binary compatibility
with older gcc versions anyway (otherwise older programs
cannot throw exceptions through gcc 3+ compiled libraries).

What's so hard on upgrading glibc?


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