This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: glibc 2.2.4pre2

Jakub Jelinek <> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:45:09AM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
>> > Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> > 
>> > >>
>> > >> The second patch still isn't in gcc-2_95-branch 
>> >                 
>> > > You have to persuade Bernd Schmidt to apply the patch, GCC is
>> > > beyond control of the glibc developers.
>> > 
>> > Bernd, Jakub: Could you both work together and release the
>> > patch ? If 2.2.4 won't support GCC 3.0.1, then Red Hat's 2.96
>> > will be the only supported compiler, what's a bad idea.
>> Why is Red Hat's 2.96 the only supported compiler ? gcc 2.95.3 from
>> SuSE Linux 7.2 also works fine without problems. I think the same
>> is true for Debian.
> Does atexit work properly there? If yes, the better.

It passes the testsuite - but we do not have yet the __dso_handle
patch in.

Jakub, can you post the patch again - or send a URL?

> I mean, do you have .hidden __dso_handle symbol in crtbeginS.o?
> If not, it will not work properly (and gcc 2.95.x did not have it).
> Also, do you have the atexit/i386 patch in (it is in 2.95.4 CVS)?


> The __dso_handle patch I posted for gcc 2.95.x was untested, that's why I
> asked people who want to compile glibc with gcc 2.95.x to test it out.

> Recently some folks have mailed about make check failure even with
> __dso_handle patch in some atexit tests. Someone who is able to reproduce it
> should debug it, I'm not able to reproduce it with the compilers I'm using
> (2.96-RH and 3.0.1).

 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs

PGP signature

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