This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17


On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 12:16 -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:30:00 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > Assuming a 2.17-based release:
> >
> > If you use GLIBC_2.17 as the base ABI then you need only backport those
> > required critical PPC64 LE patches. There are no ABI implications.
> >
> > If you use GLIBC_2.18 you not only need to backport those required
> > critical patches, but also anything else to make the ABI complete,
> > followed by anything else that might have caused subtle behavioural
> > differences that you don't know about yet (which need not be considered
> > bugs).
> 
> Why does using GLIBC_2.18 mean you need to do that?
> 
> It looks like to me that there are two separate-but-entangled questions 
> here:
> 
> * Is the set of symbols in the base powerpc64le ABI the set provided by 
> 2.17, 2.18, or 2.19?  Which is to say: What is the minimum set of 
> symbols that a backported version must provide?
>

Brooks it was established that there are at least 6 new symbols between
GLIBC-2.17 and 2.18:

http://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00730.html

So the default symbol set matters to anyone who needs to support
back-port to a older (than 2.19) glibc.

> * Is the version number that should be attached to those symbols to be 
> GLIBC_2.17, GLIBC_2.18, or GLIBC_2.19?
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing something important, but I don't understand why the
> second of these must imply the first -- and my understanding of Joseph 
> and Adam's arguments is that they don't consider these as linked.
> 
> - Brooks
> 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]