Re: glibc2.1 [offtopic]

[Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.columbia.edu>]

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:44:24 -0800 (PST), H.J. Lu wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:15:42 -0800 (PST), H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> I'm interested in trying out glibc2.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu (kernel
>> >> 2.2.1).
>> >> 
>> >> In the glibc2.1 FAQ it says that libstdc++ must be rebuilt.  So do I
>> >> understand correctly that I need to rebuild egcs-1.1.1 after
>> >> installing glibc2.1, and that all my existing c++ executables will
>> >> then be broken until they are relinked???
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Yes. That is true.
>> >
>> >I have been trying to tell everyone that please include my library
>> >versioining patch in egcs 1.1.1. But noone listened to me. That is
>> >one reason why I have to mantain an egcs for Linux. 
>> 
>> Your library versioning patch is broken.  It does not fix the problem
>
>Well, it is on the mainline now.

Are we talking about the same patch?  The one I don't like is the one
that localizes a bunch of symbols in libgcc.a.  AFAIK it hasn't gone in.

>> you created it to fix.  Instead it creates more binary
>> incompatibilities.
>
>It works for me. You never gave me a convincing example to show
>it is broken. Maybe we have different opinions on what "broken"
>means in this context.

"It works for me" != "it works for everyone".

You localized a bunch of symbols that have been in libgcc since GCC1
and will never go away.  Things like _muldi3.  Those symbols are
re-exported by libc.  We can't take them out without breaking every
binary that needs them.

zw