This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Linux vs. libio
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Linux vs. libio
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:38:54 -0800
- Cc: jbuck at synopsys dot com, jason at cygnus dot com, drepper at gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <199912202336.PAA16416@atrus.synopsys.com><675.945735514@upchuck>
>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
Jeffrey> IMHO, even for development versions Mark needs to get the
Jeffrey> glibc folks on board first or that work needs to happen
Jeffrey> on a branch.
There are reasons to get the new ABI code in, even without libio
changes. Such as anyone using GCC on an IA64 system needs those
changes. They can get another free C++ iostreams library, like the
one from SGI, and use it instead of libio.
But, they can't ship ABI-compliant code without an ABI-compliant C++
compiler.
Doing the new ABI work (in the compiler, not libio) is just like
adding support for the MIPS R10K, or for a new generic optimization,
or for a new language feature -- as long as it's not impacting the
rest of the compiler, and it's a good thing to do, it belongs on the
mainline, right? This isn't like old-IA32 vs. new-IA32, or
old-fixinclude vs. new-fixincludes; there will never be a cutover from
the old ABI to the new ABI. Instead, they'll both coexist, with a
switch to choose which one to use, for the forseeable future.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com