Re: [PATCH] Updated glibc-gcc3.patch

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 10:59:24AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > If __register_frame_info and similar registry is not present in
> > glibc, this means all shared libs have to be linked against -lgcc_s
> 
> Anad this is how it has to be.  Otherwise the whole conceot of
> libgcc_s is wrong and then you'll have to convince the gcc people.
> glibc is not there to work around such decisions.

Richard, can you please say your word here?
Do you want /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 to be linked with every C shared library and
every C program even on GLIBC 2.2.5+ systems?

> > But what I'm worried more is the GCC_3.0 vs. GLIBC_2.2.5 thing which
> > basically render this glibc change useless.
> 
> Show me examples.  Code.

E.g. try the attached testcase (replace the compilers so that one is gcc 3.1
and one is gcc-2.96 (or 2.95, doesn't matter) and the third one can be equal
to one of the two).
Dies miserably when glibc has those symbols @ GLIBC_2.2.5, while works
flawlessly if they are @ GCC_3.0.

	Jakub

Attachment: test_eh.tar.bz2
Description: Binary data