Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 05:58:09PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Joern Rennecke <amylaar@cygnus.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > Or we could be lazy and use a major / minor number scheme for abi / libgcc2.
> 
> No, this won't work.  ELF has no understanding of minor versions.
> 
> You'll have to keep track of the ABI numbering.  What you don't have
> to do is bump the version number for every newly added interface.
> This is no problem and should be taken care of using versioning.  But
> you'll have to bump the number for each and every actual change.
> 

That is another reason why I prefer glibc builds libgcc.so from
libgcc.a provided by gcc. Glibc has all the infrastructure needed
to do it. I doubt it will be easy for gcc to do the same. Besides
only very few OSes are affected by this. Why does gcc have to bother
with it? It will be very hard for gcc to do it right for every target.
IMHO, gcc should only provide a stable libgcc ABI and leave libgcc.so
to each affected target.


H.J.