This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17
- From: Steven Munroe <munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at dpdx dot net>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, carlos at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:01:21 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140131201607 dot GG99202 at jinx>
- Reply-to: munroesj at us dot ibm dot com
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
>