This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: patch lost?

From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
To: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>,libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:04:37 -0800
Subject: Re: patch lost?
References: <200411300046.iAU0kXf2024434@napali.hpl.hp.com> <200411300305.iAU35ep9016243@magilla.sf.frob.com> <16812.1291.576553.656236@napali.hpl.hp.com> <20041130055443.GA4867@lucon.org> <16812.3417.408252.514339@napali.hpl.hp.com>

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:04:09PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:54:43 -0800, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:
> 
>   HJ> I am afraid that there is another gcc bug which has to be fixed
>   HJ> first:
> 
>   HJ> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18153
> 
>   HJ> My patch is still waiting for review. Otherwise, many DSOs from
>   HJ> glibc will depend on libunwind.so.7 which isn't used at all.
> 
> That's no reason to not apply the glibc patch, no?  At the moment,

Not at all.

> it's simply impossible to build glibc with an unwind-enabled GCC.

I'd like to see both patches applied.


H.J.

References:
- patch lost?
  - From: David Mosberger
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: David Mosberger
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: patch lost?
  - From: David Mosberger

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