This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Bug-compatibility with Sol* ld.so
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: David O'Brien <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:10:00 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bug-compatibility with Sol* ld.so
- References: <20020924175811.D2194@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20020924160939.GA32601@nevyn.them.org> <20021128204647.GA81911@dragon.nuxi.com> <20021201165837.GA6810@nevyn.them.org> <20021202021752.GA10649@dragon.nuxi.com>
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 06:17:53PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:58:37AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:46:47PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:09:39PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > How affected is glibc? I.E. will using the new binutils break existing
> > > > SPARC GNU/Linux installations?
> > >
> > > This broke FreeBSD/sparc64 when I upgraded our 2.13 (2002-10-10) Binutils
> > > to 2.13 (2002-11-27). Until we can modify our code to deal with this
> > > change, I'd like to back it out of the 2.13 branch for 2.13.2.
> > No. It was brought in because it fixes a critical bug on Solaris. It's
> > a behavior change, but it's to match Solaris and GNU/Linux has adapted;
> > for now either don't upgrade or fix your dynamic linker, please.
> May I commit this work around for 2.13.2? It separates FreeBSD/sparc64
> from Solaris and Linux. My guess is NetBSD/sparc64 also needs this, but
> I can't verify that.
No. I'm strongly opposed to dropping in this sort of hack. If you
need it, then work out whatever problems you have in maintaining local
patches to binutils; or just fix your dynamic loader on sparc64.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer