This is the mail archive of the 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: Problem with removing atexit.

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:28:15PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:20:56AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:52:45AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Now, the question is, do we provide backward binary compatibility to
> > > > DSOs built against glibc 2.0.x? Any comments?
> > > 
> > > This seems to be the same problem I ran into on non-i386, with a gcc
> > > that didn't have the weaksym patch. It's not a compatibility problem,
> > > it's a bug in gcc. The DSO's need to be recompiled with a recent gcc
> > > (2.95.4 from CVS, or gcc-3.x)
> > 
> > If you have to recompile a DSO to work with glibc 2.2.3, it IS a
> > compatibility issue. My question is, should we require people to
> > recompile DSOs with a right gcc if they want to use glibc 2.2.3?
> > I don't think we should. But I don't have a good solution at hand
> > for this problem.
> You have to recompile it only because it was compiled with a buggy gcc.
> This isn't a compatibility issue any more than it is to not link with
> -lc and thus not include libc_nonshared.a into libraries.

Wrong. Read my emails and think about it again. The problem is the
current symbol version scheme doesn't provide the backward run-time
binary compatibility for DSOs compiled without symbol version when
we remove a default symbol.


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