Re: continuing egcs-1.1 problems

[bacon at aerodyne dot com]

On  2 Nov, Franz Sirl wrote:
> At 02:56 02.11.98 , David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>>>>> Elgin Lee writes:
>>
>>Elgin> I'm hazy on the workings of the code, but on the surface this looks
>>Elgin> like a comparison-reversal bug that is fixed by the patch.  (But why
>>Elgin> does this work on the RS6000/AIX?  Perhaps because r4 and r8 are equal
>>Elgin> there on the RS6000/AIX?)
>>
>>	AIX does not use this code whatsoever.  This trampoline code only
>>is used by SVR4, not AIX PowerOpen ABI.
> 
> David, he's talking the appended patch. I wonder why it still is in. The
> first part is definitely wrong (I thought Gary Thomas already agreed to
> that?) and the second part breaks the SVR-ABI spec AFAIK (it is meant to be
> a speedup patch). I assume Gary is somekind of dead-locked here, removing
> the ABI patch will produce a correct egcs, but break older installations
> compiled with the patch then.
> Btw, on glibc-2.0.99 the test-program compiles and runs just fine, I don't
> think it is necessary to spend more thoughts on this.
> 

Are you then saying that we need to recompile glibc using a compiler
without the patch?  The reason I ask is that the patch comes from the
offical distributions of mklinux DR3 and LinuxPPC R4.  This would mean
that we need to back out this patch, and rebuild glibc and possibly
everything else which may have been built with a version of egcs-1.0.2
that contained the patch.

I have no quarrel with how this problem gets solved.  I have no
convictions about where the problem is located.  But the problem exists
and needs to be corrected.  If that means rebuilding all of user space
in order to keep the libraries and compiler consistent...fine.  Let's
do it.

I hope I don't sound too harsh.  I simply want this problem solved, and
I'm willing to do whatever it takes to see it done.  Let's identify
the correct problem and apply the correct solution.  

At this juncture, it looks as though glibc is broken because it was
built with a broken compiler.  The proper solution seems to be that we
should build a new compiler, without the patch from Gary, and use that
to rebuild glibc.

Is that the general consensus?  Should we rebuild the libraries with
the unpatched compiler?  How extensive are the incompatibilities likely
to be?  Should everything be rebuilt, or will rebuilding glibc be
sufficient?

-- 
Fred Bacon

==========================================================================
Aerodyne Research, Inc.                   Phone:   (978) 663-9500 ext. 273
45 Manning Rd.                              FAX:   (978) 663-4918
Billerica, MA  01821-3976                  http://www.aerodyne.com
==========================================================================
    Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.