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: Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at dpdx dot net>
- To: munroesj at us dot ibm dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, carlos at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:32:08 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140131201607 dot GG99202 at jinx> <1391202081 dot 1683 dot 17 dot camel at spokane1 dot rchland dot ibm dot com>
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:01:21PM -0600, Steven Munroe wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 12:16 -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> > * 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.
Yup. I agree that that makes the set of required symbols a very
important question for the amount of work Carlos and team have to do for
a 2.17 backport.
Does the use of a minimum-GLIBC_2.18 version tag on the symbols one
exports imply that one must export these 6 or more new symbols?
(An important observation here is that these are all _new_ symbols, and
so there is no problem of a 2.17-with-2.18-versioning exporting
something that conflicts with what a "true" 2.18 exports. If we had
revised any symbols between 2.17 and 2.18 there would be an obvious
problem, but I don't think that's the case.)
- Brooks