Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <m3d7kkgspg.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com>you write:
  > Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
  > 
  > > Precisely.   There's at least two (HP & DEC/Compaq) that have non-linux,
  > > non-ELF systems which suffer from precisely the same core problems.
  > 
  > But they almost certainly need different solutions.
The solution for both of those systems is a shared libgcc.so instead of
trying to make each library contain copies of all the libgcc routines
it uses.


  > Anyway, this all is really becoming silly.  I've never said that I
  > wanted to write or maintain such a library.  I just don't believe that
  > the gcc people are able to maintain such a delicate interface for so
  > many platforms in a timely fashion given that you will also get
  > requests from the individual system library maintainers which have to
  > be taken into account.
It's certainly not going to be easy, but it's what is going to have to be
done going forward.  There's simply no way around it looking at the kinds
of problems the GCC project is supposed to be solving in the not too
distant future.


  > You should stop making any incompatible changes before you can show a
  > solution for the problem.  Failing to do so, and the current situation
  > is already in the state, means that nobody can really use the current
  > compiler anymore since newly compiled binaries will crash.
I agree completely -- once we get gcc3.0 out the door.

  > I suggest to revert any such change and start working on the solution
  > of the interface problem.  Then we will see whether you can stand
  > behind your words.
So which ones are you referring to?
jeff