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: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)


On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 02:55:12AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>    Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:05:35 -0700
>    From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com>
> 
>    You really haven't seen my scheme in action. Check out the current
>    RedHat rawhide. They have 2 C++ compilers. egcs 1.1.2 is used to
>    compile KDE.
> 
>    # ls  /usr/lib/libstdc++* 
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so   /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.a.3
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-2-libc6.2-1-2.9.0.a    /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-2-libc6.2-1-2.9.0.so   /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.7.2
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.a   /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.7.2.8
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so  /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.8
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2         /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.8.0
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-1.a.2          /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.9
>    /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-1.so.2         /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.9.dummy
>    # rpm -qf /usr/lib/libstdc++-2-libc6.2-1-2.9.0.so
>    kernelcc-c++-1.1.2-4
>    # rpm -qf /usr/lib/libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so
>    libstdc++-2.96-33
> 
> And you honestly believe this is a good thing?  It illustrates that

I believe it is a working solution. It is far from perfect. But it
is better than nothing. If you don't like mine, I'd like to hear
yours. It'd better be working TODAY.

> the libstdc++ are failing to properly version their library (which is
> somewhat understandable since they've punted binary compatibility for
> C++ until GCC 3.0).  And by giving them your "interface scheme" you've

Do you think why they can punt binary compatibility? Why haven't Linux
users complained very loudly?

> provided them with the means to get away with it.  Just slap a
> different soname on every permutation of things and you're not very
> likely to get complaints about binary incompatibilities.

Do you have any suggestions? Don't tell me GCC 3.0 will solve
everything. Red Hat already uses gcc 2.96 in rawhide. One of the
reasons I believe is gcc 2.95 and egcs 1.1.2 won't compile glibc 2.2.
I hope they won't use gcc 2.96 in the public release.

> 
> You see that you have both: libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so
> and:                        libstdc++-2-libc6.2-1-2.9.0.so
> 
> I think those should be binary compatible (assuming this is a system
> where glibc 2.2 is the installed system C library).

I don't know for sure. I believe they aren't C++ binary compatible.


H.J.

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