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 18:29:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:58:40PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I still need to know, though, whether Benjamin's problems have been
> solved or not
I cannot reproduce it.
I have made both plain ../configure i386-redhat-linux
builds (gcc-3_2-branch, HEAD) and
../configure i386-redhat-linux --enable-threads-posix --enable-shared --enable-__cxa_atexit
bootstraps, libstdc++ in all 4 cases showed one FAIL and a bunch of XPASSes.
That was repeated after I exchanged libstdc++.so.5.0.0 binaries between
So to me both libstdc++.so.5 look compatible (and likewise C++, at least
to the extent covered by consistency.vlad (minus some __alignof__ of
Both were vanilla checkouts (the former from the weekend, the pthread builds
> , and what we're doing about Franz's versioning suggestion.
As I already wrote, I don't think this is necessary, especially this late
in the game, but if Richard or Geoff think otherwise...
BTW: What about the IA-32 bitfield ABI bug and what about __m64 alignment?