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: going forward


On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:39:53PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> writes:
> 
> > Enough has been done already, that I would hope we could get this fully
> > resolved by a week from today.
> 
> I'm not so optimistic.  So far all I have seen are results from people
> running completely new environments and individual results of running
> older programs.  Nobody put down which combinations have been tested.

I was doing some testing, particularly:
main C++ program compiled with 2.96-RH and 3.0.1 throwing exceptions through
C library -fexceptions compiled with 2.96-RH and 3.0.1 an all tests passed.
If main program was compiled with 2.96-RH, I had to use -lc explicitely on
the command line, since otherwise __frame_state_for and registry/unregistry
from libstdc++ is used, but this is a distribution compatibility thingie
which is not related to glibc - I'll just patch all compatibility libstdc++
libraries so that they don't have the register/unregister/__frame_state_for
stuff at all.

As 2.96-RH's __frame_state_for is now binary compatible with egcs 1.1.2 and
2.95.x, I don't think there is a stressing need to do the testing with all
compilers, but it of course won't hurt.

But surely it needs more testing, so I'll do some testing myself after the
weekend and ask other people to do some testing too once I build rpms out of
it.

	Jakub


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