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] |
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 01:52:17PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > Then we can more forward in both directions, stable branch and 2.3. I > would prefer to get the gcc3 stuff in before branching but so far I > have seen no real proof that the patch works. I mean working not only > with newly build code, that's the easy part. I mean with all these > ugly C++ binaries which are able to run on today's systems. Without > such a verification it's too early to add the patch. > I am not convinced that dlopen libgcc_s.so.1 is worth the trouble, given all kinds of different, complicated cases we have to deal with. I don't think it is even possible to verify all possible permutations. After all, we are trying to deal with the future gcc changes. H.J.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |