This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

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

Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria

To: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
Subject: Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:15:14 -0700
Cc: Chip Salzenberg <chip at valinux dot com>,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, mark at codesourcery dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, geoffk at cygnus dot com, libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <200004271445.KAA13474@caip.rutgers.edu> <20000427095256.C11838@cygnus.com> <20000427173305.J570@perlsupport.com> <20000427174246.C12403@cygnus.com> <20000427174915.A29108@lucon.org> <20000427180023.D12403@cygnus.com>

On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 06:00:23PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 05:49:15PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > I am late on this topic. Sorry if it has been resolved.
> 
> We have not yet discussed where to put the thing yet.
> We've only been covering the "is it even a good idea" part.
> 

The only thing I can think of is binaries linked against libgcc.so
won't run on systems without it :-). In general, I like the idea
to put one symbol in one place. If we ever decide to use libgcc.so
on Linux, we should make it mandatory. Otherwise, it will be hard
to have the binary compatibility across Linux machines.

H.J.

References:
- Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
  - From: H . J . Lu

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