This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.2.4pre2
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
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj
PGP signature