This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 01 Oct 2015 15:27, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > >> > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> >> Even better, if we can grab a few old binaries and they do not run on > >> >> current systems for other libstdc++-related reasons (or perhaps we > >> > > >> > The libstdc++ SONAME changed in GCC 3.4, so any relevant binaries will be > >> > using an old libstdc++ shared library (or possibly statically linked with > >> > libstdc++ but dynamically linked with libc). > >> > >> So system without ancient static binaries and no libstdc++-v3 or > >> earlier should be safe for this change? When did v4 happen? Seems like > >> a long time ago? > > > > It's still libstdc++-v3 even though it's gone through multiple SONAMEs > > (it's been v3 since GCC 3.0). The question is libstdc++.so.5 or older - > > or dynamically linked binaries from compilers of that vintage with > > libstdc++.a linked in. > > Okay, so, since roughly 2007? Should I name the config "--only-v6+" or > something? i wouldn't make it opaque. just call it something like "libio-file-ptr-mangle". then in the documentation, describe the possible limitations. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |