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: martin at v dot loewis dot de (Martin v. Loewis)
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 06 Aug 2002 00:02:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mark Mitchell <email@example.com> writes:
> OK; I understand the technical issue. I should have been more clear;
> how will the "both of them in wide use" part happen?
> The whole point of 3.2 is for all the distributors to have a chance to
> get to a common ABI. I'd assume they will be able to get together and
> agree on the right set of configure options.
They certainly will. However, Linux users will build their own gcc 3
installations for existing Linux installations. Those won't be
compatible with what the distributors include in their next
distributions. I believe that there will be many such installations.
> People building their own GCC -- rather than getting stuff from a
> GNU/Linux distributor -- are going to have a harder time. But, they're
> doing things the hard way; I don't mind that.
My concern is that they don't get an error indication except for the
crash, and it will be often very difficult to analyse what kind of
libgcc_s was in use.
This is especially unfortunate since the problem can be fixed in gcc:
- gcc could make those two ABIs compatible (by deciding at run-time
whether to invoke __register_frame_info_bases), or
- gcc could you symbol versioning, to make the two versions of libgcc_s
- gcc could refuse to build itself unless that is overridden by the