This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.15
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:31:43 -0700
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.15
- References: <CAOPLpQfV1LU5T8-wMm1ZUbNqG8CTHuMcn-hqBVAuf_FbnQ58Yw@mail.gmail.com> <4F036050.3080504@suse.com> <20120103205437.8EB6C2C07F@topped-with-meat.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/03/12 13:54, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> I just noticed that make check-abi fails for libm,
>
> There is probably a fair bit of bit-rot in check-abi. We should
> decide whether we really want to support it or not. Ideally, there
> would be some general tools for that sort of thing that could be
> used by anybody wanting to keep their ABI compatibility solid. But
> since no such tools yet exist in the GNU arsenal, perhaps check-abi
> is still better than nothing. But it's not worth much if nobody
> uses it or keeps it up to date.
>
> This particular question aside, I'm inclined to suggest we move to
> a policy of filing bugzilla reports for anything that a hacker
> notices but is not immediately fixing.
Interestingly enough this was passed along to me recently:
http://forge.ispras.ru/projects/abi-compliance-checker
Jeff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPA3O/AAoJEBRtltQi2kC7jtEH/0j9hoLeGIRxTZWKj5VSk1n0
4LDrA1mr3CcSS4yekhF3Q9joP4mrNDviH9/d/HuQcwKUjz6CC2Cq9GOJ4sPJp3Jq
5zRvTJzQd8HEPEflTMEcrZQqxXUDjfuziyPjKPLpukgyCpOr49oliVq7eE920hXX
/tUWWV/fVSI0E476zrqz3rvGmP3CN+H/LYzAXdK7pibvhBMmTon5Ds46VqeB+Ydl
8UPkRM0IwWZOlNgrjh+HKAJvyx67mnZVmBLNzNIkxrD3462jv/846v1YcyisyWRW
z7fs7ya4MnFOiHw93Z9lFQIOJRkmmMlxS6sYQJPLmE/brvVJ14V32TsB+gMOcv4=
=nwq0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----