Re: Quote of the day: "matrix of pain"

[Daniel Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > Hey, some projects need old stuff.   That's life.
>
> oh, i realize that, but some of the combinations seem a bit ... odd.
> it makes sense that one might be doing a build with old stuff, or a
> build with newer stuff.  but what about the combination of:
>
> 	gcc-4.0.0
> 	glibc-2.1.3
> 	binutils-2.15
> 	linux-2.6.11.3
>
> that seems a bit quirky since glibc is relatively ancient while
> everything else is quite modern, if not leading edge.

Yep.  This is actually a reasonable combination.
It happens if you need your code to run on old systems (say, Red Hat 6.2)
and you really want the latest gcc, but are unwilling to update glibc.
(The kernel version should maybe be old in this example, too,
but it's fine to have the new binutils, I think.)

> i also note
> that that combination wih any glibc < 2.3.4 fails *everywhere*, but
> glibc-2.3.4 suddenly has some successes.  at the very least, one might
> think that there's little point in listing the complete failure of
> glibc-2.3.3 when the step up to glibc-2.3.4 suddenly generates a whole
> bunch of successes.
>
> and, just looking at the very right-hand side of the matrix, the
> difference between glibc-2.3.4 and glibc-2.3.5 is zero in terms of
> results.  in cases like that, might not the slightly more recent
> version of glibc subsume the older version, all other things being
> equal?

If the extra columns offend you, try squinting :-)
Or generate your own matrix from the handy-dandy flat file
http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/buildlogs/all.dats.txt
- Dan



------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com