This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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: [review v3] slotinfo in struct dtv_slotinfo_list should be flexible array [BZ #25...


* Joseph Myers:

> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> >> How long will that take and is it OK to leave things in a broken
>> >> state for that long for a given target like nios2?
>> > 
>> > Maybe we should back the fix out and see how quickly we can get in the
>> > other GCC 10 patches?
>> 
>> I'd like to hear Joseph's opinion on this.
>
> I think the GCC fix ought to be backported to GCC 8 and 9 branches (and 
> generically that applies to fixes relevant to building new glibc versions 
> - or to building GCC *with* new glibc versions, sometimes that can justify 
> e.g. selective backports of libsanitizer fixes where new glibc broke it).
>
> I don't think we have a basis for backing out this change from glibc at 
> this point.  However, if people wish to fix building with GCC 10 on 
> previous glibc release branches (and such fixes have been a common class 
> of glibc patch backports in the past - evidently some people do wish to 
> build glibc release branches with GCC versions that postdate those glibc 
> releases), perhaps it would be better for the release-branch fix just to 
> disable the warning in the affected file rather than backporting the fix 
> from master.

It should be possible to write a configure check for the GCC bug and
build the affected object with -mgpopt=none, since it's a local issue
concentrated to a single object.  Or we can add -mgpopt=none
unconditionally for the time being.


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