This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.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: The libgcc.so for glibc initiative


H.J. -

I'm going to try another angle on the problem....

"H . J . Lu" wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 01:12:22PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >    From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
> >    Given the current libgcc.so situation, I'd like to start the libgcc.so
> >    for glibc project. The goals are
> >
> >    1. Binary compatible with binaries linked with glibc 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and
> >    above.
> >    2. Stand alone as well as glibc add-on.
> >    3. Can be used to upgrade libgcc.so from an installed gcc.
> >    4. Support glibc and glibc only.
> >    5. Support glibc 2.2 and above.
> >    6. Support gcc 2.96 and above.
> >
> >    It can be hosted on sourceforge or under glibc like linuxthreads. Any
> >    comments?
> >
> > There's nothing against experimenting with this, and using it as a
> > temporary solution util the libgcc.so thing settles down a bit.
> 
> I am just to be realistic. There is no way I can see that gcc can
> provide a general solution for libgcc.so on all targets it supports.
> It will require the runtime support from the system vendors. I don't
> believe gcc can do it on itself. The end result may be a solution
> which sort of works, but falls far short for glibc.

Given that having "one solution for all platforms" does not sound realistic;
and having a libgcc that works well for Linux glibc *is* important -- is there
anything that prevents some glibc person(s) working with the gcc libgcc
maintainer for Linux, to produce a libgcc that meets our needs? Maybe even
produce a spec so that future versions of the libgcc-for-linux will stay
compatible? 

While libgcc.so may be a per-platform issue, I do not see why we cannot
work with/educate the appropriate gcc maintainer on this; as long as 
part of the education includes why we need a libgcc that meets *all*
of the glibc needs.

Mark

-- 
Mark S. Brown                                                   bmark@us.ibm.com
IBM RS/6000 AIX System Architecture                    512.838.3926  T/L678.3926
IBM Corporation, Austin, Texas

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