This is the mail archive of the
libc-hacker@cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility
- To: egcs@tantalophile.demon.co.uk (Jamie Lokier)
- Subject: Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility
- From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: law@cygnus.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com, libc-hacker@cygnus.com (GNU C Library)
>
> Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > Or they can use the latest glibc 2.0 via CVS. I am willing to set up a
> > > ftp site with tar files.
> > What am I not being clear about?
> >
> > This kind of binary breakage is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if you
> > put a new glibc somewhere. Breaking binaries like that patch did is not
> > acceptable.
>
> The patch does *not break binaries*.
>
> Installing EGCS and using it to compile new applications does
> *not break binaries*.
>
> But recompiling some shared libraries using EGCS with the patch breaks some
> binaries. Is it unreasonable to request a user upgrades to the latest
> Glibc 2.0, or any Glibc 2.1 before doing this?
>
Exactly. That is a glibc problem. not an egcs problem. I don't think
egcs should get involved with it. Maybe we should put it in the glibc
FAQ.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)