[2.45 PATCH 0/3] Backport GLIBC_ABI version dependencies

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Sam,

>>> Richard would like to make GCC configure fatal by default unless users
>>> have safe glibc or explicitly ask for it:
>>>
>>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/CAFiYyc2P5ioY=w2wuHZoa275yLsEKBnnQbGgpkDDys=7x718kA@mail.gmail.com/
>>>
>>> This patch set backports GLIBC_ABI version dependencies to 2.45 so that we
>>> can tell users to use it.
>>
>> Nick, for some more context:
>>
>> I'll note that we've backported the relevant symbols to appropriate
>> glibc branches (quite far back) based on discussion there, but we need
>> the GLIBC_ABI_GNU2_TLS dependency to be added by bfd for this to be useful.
>>
>> Coordinating changes across the GNU toolchain isn't easy. But it is a
>> strength that we can do these things when necessary. My hope is we
>> can have these backports (even if extraordinary) and possibly have a
>> 2.45.1 release for:
>> a) this, and
>> b) the strip fixes (already on the branch), and
>> c) the windres fix (already on the branch).
>>
>> I've been using these for a while and not had any issues.
>>
>> I will also note:
>> * the GLIBC_ABI_DT_X86_64_PLT change here fixes some confusion that hit
>>    distributors of glibc (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33212#c0)
>>    becausee we were previously abusing GLIBC_2.36 for that;
>>
>> * the GLIBC_ABI_GNU_TLS (not the GLIBC_ABI_GNU2_TLS one) change is
>>    needed to know if binaries are safe even without any default changes
>>    in GCC for i386 if TLS is used.
> 
> Gentle ping when you get a chance, Nick. Cheers!

Thanks for the gentle prod, and sorry for missing this thread before.

So I am totally OK with creating a 2.45.1 release.  It is something that
should only take me a weekend to complete.

Is everything ready on the 2.45 branch now ?  Or should I wait until you
give me the OK ?

Cheers
   Nick