This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Linux vs. libio



  In message <19991220110443J.mitchell@codesourcery.com>you write:
  > We're not talking about a release here.  We're just talking bout
  > development.
We do not change libio in our development tree without consulting with
and getting agreement from Ulrich and the glibc folks.  That is my
position and I see absolutely no reason to change it.

If you get them to buy into your scheme, then I'll support the code, but
that needs to happen *BEFORE* you install the code into GCC's libio.

  > It isn't really required that libio and glibc change in lockstep.  It
  > certainly doesn't matter on platforms that don't use glibc.
Huh?  If you don't change them in lockstep you introduce incompatibilities
between the version in the linux C library and the version in GCC.  That
has proven to be a majorly stupid thing to do.  We don't want to repeat
that mistake again.  So I'll repeat.  They must change in lock step.


  > It's very hard to move in lock-step; I think there are IA32 Linux
  > users who would like to try out -fnew-abi (to see if it works, to see
  > if it performs better, etc.), but who don't want to upgrade their C
  > libraries.  (I'm one of those users.)  
Yes it is hard; I've been in this situation many times.  Find a way to make
it work.  Find a way that is palatable to the glibc maintainers.

  > Why should we make it hard for people to test the new ABI?
Why should we diverge from glibc?  That just makes our life more difficult.

You've got find another way which doesn't cause our libio to diverge from
the one in glibc.  No ifs ands or buts about it.


jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]