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 07/14/2016 11:09 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 10:59 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> writes:I can't remember other cases of us not making reasonable changes because not making them hides bugs in other projects. Why would emacs be an exception?It isn't an exception. It is an unresolved problem.If there are no cases that are similar, and we generally treat user-program bugs differently, it is an exception. Do you have examples in other programs that we treated similarly?
The story around memcpy@@GLIBC_2.14 is similar. We added an optimization to a new symbol version only. This kept old and buggy binaries working, but you could no longer copy new binaries to an older, pre-2.14 system and run it there (which usually works, although it is technically unsupported). So in this case, we rated compatibility with buggy applications higher than user convenience.
I'm not sure if we have ever done something like that to hide bugs in applications which were compiled from source after a glibc update.
Florian
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |