This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: X32 project status update
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: x32-abi at googlegroups dot com
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:47:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: X32 project status update
- References: <BANLkTinM_=bAjD59=GiKtTvjLtoOs7KCFA@mail.gmail.com><CAMe9rOom59dS1X6tfUec36O3Q0jFDZiE36Pesw3+Nvr7kyTUqg@mail.gmail.com><CAB=4xhqkeNd5RB=4cs8zJOyR0WRvJHEdSq5HPaEoZuKHuiL7uw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Roland McGrath <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:58 PM, H.J. Lu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 2. I backported x32 support to glibc 2.14, 2.13, 2.12 and 2.11. ?Since
>> glibc 2.11
>> is the first x32 release now, the x32 minimum ABI is changed from GLIBC_2.14
>> to GLIBC_2.11, which require recompiling all existing x32 binaries.
> What's the rationale for this?
> Since the x32 ABI didn't actually exist in these glibc releases, I don't
> see why you want to backport it and make the symbol versions make false
> claims. ?In fact, since we still haven't merged it, it really belongs in
> GLIBC_2.15 (or later, depending when it gets done).
I got a request to backport x32 to glibc 2.11, which becomes the first x32
port due to its existence.