Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:59:46PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> I say _the odds are_.  I'm not qualified to review binutils patches,
> and H.J.'s changelogs tell you absolutely nothing about what was
> fixed.  Example:
> 
> >Changes from binutils 2.10.0.18:
> >
> >1. Update from binutils 2000 0823.
> 
> Why was that necessary?  (More generally, why are these releases
> tracking development binutils instead of the 2.10 branch?)
> 
> >Fix DT_RPATH/DT_RUNPATH handling.
> >Fix the ELF/ia32 DSO not compiled with PIC.
> 
> What was wrong with them?  What do the changes do and why do they fix
> the bug(s)?

Check the binutils mailing list archive.

> 
> >2. Try to fix the ELF visibility bug on PPC with glibc 2.2.
> 
> What was wrong with it?  What does the change do?  Why might it fix
> the bug?  Why might it _not_ fix the bug?

Check the binutils and glibc mailing list archives.

> 
> I completely understand why people hesitate to integrate H.J.'s
> binutils releases into their distributions.  I'm not at all happy with
> using them myself.  If H.J. would devote even a small amount of time
> to describing his changes, perhaps people would be more comfortable
> with them.  It is no more and no less than we ask of everyone else...

My binutils is for Linux and Linux only. As far as I know, most of
Linux distributions use it. I will do whatever neccessay to fix any
Linux related bugs. The problem with 2.10 is it was out of date when
the branch was made in CVS. I can understand not all platforms want
to use the sourceware. But I have no problems to make sure sourceware
is working for Linux. For Linux, the binutils main trunk on sourceware
is reasonably stable.



H.J.