This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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

From: martin at v dot loewis dot de (Martin v. Loewis)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 05 Aug 2002 22:14:01 +0200
Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
References: <20020805072513.A21121@twiddle.net><50300000.1028557886@warlock.codesourcery.com><20020805145758.GA22578@nevyn.them.org>

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

> 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.

C++ binaries built for glibc 2.2.5 or later won't execute on a system
with glibc 2.2.4 or earlier.

Regards,
Martin

References:
- Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

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