This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- From: "Winfried Magerl" <winfried dot magerl at t-online dot de>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Ryan Arnold <rsa at us dot ibm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:13:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- References: <51B65DE4 dot 4010107 at redhat dot com> <20130611212359 dot GA263 at winnix> <51B79707 dot 7050709 at redhat dot com>
Hi Carlos,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:30:47PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 05:23 PM, Winfried Magerl wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > refering the mail-thread with subject:
> >
> > gcc-4.8 + tree-loop-distribute-patterns breaks glibc-2.18
> >
> > still no way to run testsuite for glibc-2.18 with -O3 (which enables
> > tree-loop-distribute-patterns for gcc).
> > At least a note in the release-notes would be necessary to explain
> > why gcc-4.7 + glibc-2.18 + -O3 is a bad idea.
>
> Well, there is.
>
> Apply the Fedora patch for the problem:
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/glibc.git/diff/glibc-rh911307.patch?id=6cfdaac5b6b98b0810253d20e3cb4e069f432ec6
>
> We could apply this for 2.18 as a band-aid to the gcc problem,
> but it would need more massaging, like only enabling when configure
> detects the transformation is present.
thank you for the link. For my personal system it's no problem
(and venders have no proble either) but as a general rule I think
it's simply bad if glibc has to much dependencies on gcc and
compiler-flags.
If workarounds with compiler-flags are still not acceptable patches
we're back to my proposal (corrected: gcc-4.7 -> gcvc-4.8):
> > At least a note in the release-notes would be necessary to explain
> > why gcc-4.8 + glibc-2.18 + -O3 is a bad idea.
regards
winfried