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: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:48:31 -0400
- Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:43:26PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> --On Monday, August 05, 2002 10:16:35 PM +0200 "Martin v. Loewis"
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> I agree. I don't think we need to do this for GCC 3.2, but I do think
> >> it would be good to do this at some point.
> > If you don't do this for 3.2, you will definitely end up with two
> > incompatible ABIs on Linux, both of them in wide use.
> Walk me through it, if you please.
> How will this happen?
If one gcc is configured with --enable-threads=posix and one without this,
then the 2 aren't ABI compatible (see the list of libstdc++-v3
make check failures I got when doing this and swapping the 2 libraries).
If one gcc is configured on glibc 2.2.5+ and one on old glibc, then the
former can run everybody's applications/libraries while the latter only
apps/libraries compiled using that compiler.