This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] [SH] ABI baseline update
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:49:48 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SH] ABI baseline update
- References: <email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> What other architectures' files do not have is the __stack_chk_guard
> symbol -- why is SH being special there?
See <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2011-09/msg00121.html> for a
discussion of architecture stack-check differences.
> i386 and x86_64 define __fentry__ in their mcount implementations, so it
> perhaps is an error that they originally were present in SH's
> libc.abilist (and also in x390's, by the way).
Yes, that was a mistake when the lists were updated (before being split
into separate files) without actually checking what architectures had
things in what versions. __fentry__ is x86-specific.
> fanotify_mark can be found in several syscalls.list files, but not in one
> that SH uses (which might be wrong or might be correct).
Sounds like a bug in the SH file (if fixing it you'll need to put the
function in the SH Versions file at 2.16, of course). This is listed
separately in each syscalls.list for a 32-bit architecture.
> Additionally, I have a __fpscr_values D 0x8 for GLIBC_2.2 which I also
> yet have to trace down why I have it and you don't.
You're building a glibc with a Debian-originated patch that adds that
export. I don't claim to understand the reason for that export, however.
> > @@ -4,83 +4,56 @@ GLIBC_2.15
> > __acosf_finite F
> > __acosh_finite F
> > __acoshf_finite F
> > - __acoshl_finite F
> > - __acosl_finite F
> > __asin_finite F
> > __asinf_finite F
> > - __asinl_finite F
> > [...]
> Given these are prefixed with two underscores (and thus internal?) it's
> probably fine to have them disappear?
These are not expected to be exported for any architecture where long
double has the same representation as double.
Joseph S. Myers