This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Problem with removing atexit.
- To: Ben Collins <bcollins at debian dot org>
- Subject: Re: Problem with removing atexit.
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:20:56 -0700
- Cc: "Adam J. Richter" <adam at yggdrasil dot com>,GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <200105010658.XAA10472@adam.yggdrasil.com> <20010501081624.A29072@lucon.org> <20010501115244.X435@visi.net>
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:52:45AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Now, the question is, do we provide backward binary compatibility to
> > DSOs built against glibc 2.0.x? Any comments?
>
> This seems to be the same problem I ran into on non-i386, with a gcc
> that didn't have the weaksym patch. It's not a compatibility problem,
> it's a bug in gcc. The DSO's need to be recompiled with a recent gcc
> (2.95.4 from CVS, or gcc-3.x)
If you have to recompile a DSO to work with glibc 2.2.3, it IS a
compatibility issue. My question is, should we require people to
recompile DSOs with a right gcc if they want to use glibc 2.2.3?
I don't think we should. But I don't have a good solution at hand
for this problem.
H.J.