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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: compiler standards (and/or min gcc version) supported withinstalled headers ?

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 January 2013 10:17:46 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > I say we agree that 2.95.3 is the oldest compiler we will support
> > > for compiling userspace applications using glibc headers.
> > 
> > Given that the headers are generally meant to support non-GCC compilers, I
> > think all you might gain is elimination of cases specifically for older
> > GCC, so that older GCC uses the same cases as non-GCC.  Simply changing
> > __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 95) to __GNUC__ is hardly a gain.  (And where the
> > older-GCC case is simply an optimization, or where the older-GCC and
> > non-GCC cases have similar functionality that's not fully conforming, I
> > think a more recent baseline such as 4.1 would be reasonable.)
> i don't think 4.1 is reasonable.  i def see people actively using gcc-3.3 and 
> gcc-3.4 today (when things break, i get reports fairly quickly).

But how important is it that users of 3.3 get the macro definition of 
__mempcpy (that's used for __GNUC_PREREQ (3, 0) && !__GNUC_PREREQ (3, 4)), 
rather than just getting calls to the out-of-line __mempcpy in glibc (like 
non-GCC compilers), for example?  That's the issue involved where the 
version conditionals are just about optimizations: removing complicated 
macro definitions that won't actually have been tested with the glibc 
testsuite for several years.

Joseph S. Myers

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