glibc 2.2.4pre2

[Andreas Jaeger]

Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:45:09AM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
>> 
>> > Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> > 
>> > >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-glibc/2001-07/msg00017.html
>> > >> The second patch still isn't in gcc-2_95-branch 
>> >                 
>> > > You have to persuade Bernd Schmidt to apply the patch, GCC is
>> > > beyond control of the glibc developers.
>> > 
>> > Bernd, Jakub: Could you both work together and release the
>> > patch ? If 2.2.4 won't support GCC 3.0.1, then Red Hat's 2.96
>> > will be the only supported compiler, what's a bad idea.
>> 
>> Why is Red Hat's 2.96 the only supported compiler ? gcc 2.95.3 from
>> SuSE Linux 7.2 also works fine without problems. I think the same
>> is true for Debian.
>
> Does atexit work properly there? If yes, the better.

It passes the testsuite - but we do not have yet the __dso_handle
patch in.

Jakub, can you post the patch again - or send a URL?

> I mean, do you have .hidden __dso_handle symbol in crtbeginS.o?
> If not, it will not work properly (and gcc 2.95.x did not have it).
> Also, do you have the atexit/i386 patch in (it is in 2.95.4 CVS)?

Yes.

> The __dso_handle patch I posted for gcc 2.95.x was untested, that's why I
> asked people who want to compile glibc with gcc 2.95.x to test it out.

> Recently some folks have mailed about make check failure even with
> __dso_handle patch in some atexit tests. Someone who is able to reproduce it
> should debug it, I'm not able to reproduce it with the compilers I'm using
> (2.96-RH and 3.0.1).

Andreas
-- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7cPPsOJpWPMJyoSYRAkDGAJ0dlKHTxMXRGZUgZO+VZ8ikMf2WQgCfcUAf
WFcIdEqXZD0PerVWD3Oje1Q=
=l4GL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----From jakub@redhat.com Wed Aug 08 01:21:00 2001
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
Cc: Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.de>, Frédéric L. W. Meunier <0@pervalidus.net>, libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: glibc 2.2.4pre2
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 01:21:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010808102608.U12476@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20010808033623.E135@pervalidus.net> <20010808094508.A18690@suse.de> <20010808100053.T12476@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <hopua755w5.fsf@gee.suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00093.html
Content-length: 560

On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 10:10:18AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > Does atexit work properly there? If yes, the better.
> 
> It passes the testsuite

That's because:

  if (&__dso_handle == NULL)
    {
      puts ("__dso_handle not available, cannot perform the test");
      exit (0);
    }

but that means atexit won't work properly (it will not run the exit handlers
at dlclose time).

> - but we do not have yet the __dso_handle patch in.
> 
> Jakub, can you post the patch again - or send a URL?

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg00748.html

	Jakub