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

Zack Weinberg zack@wolery.cumb.org
Sun Sep 3 12:59:00 GMT 2000

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 09:10:28PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> In article < 20000903111111.A8315@lucon.org > you write:
> >All ELF and Linux related bug fixes are important to Linux. On the
> >other hand, it takes me much less time to fix the current CVS than
> >backport all those patches to 2.10.  Please don't do it for Linux. We
> >have to use the one based on the current sourceware.
> Please do it for other platforms. Not every system has an over-eager
> H.J.Lu churning bug-fixed after bug-fixed release of binutils...

The odds are that (many of) H.J.'s patches are appropriate to any
system using ELF.  I am not sure if OpenBSD does or not, but I know at
least FreeBSD does.

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
>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)?

>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?

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...


More information about the Gcc mailing list