Re: more testing needed

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 11:12:22AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:12:20AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > I'm currently quite satisfied with the status on x86.  But I don't
> > know much about the status on other machines.  About a week ago I
> > tried Alpha and had a problem in the test suite.  Haven't tried IA-64.
> > And there are some PPC patches outstanding (one from Andreas, the
> > other by Franz).
> 
> I think libgcc_s.so.1 vs. GLIBC needs to be resolved, see my mail in
> `GCC 3.0 and GLIBC don't work together' thread on libc-alpha.
> I think glibc 2.2.4 should be compilable by GCC 3.0 now when it is released.
> Before I hack something, I'd like to know what you and other folks think is
> best (so far I have just heard from H.J.).
> 

I don't think we can go out along without any cooporation from the gcc
developers. If we don't do that, who knows what they will do later and
how teh other Linux vendors/normal gcc/glibc users will deal with it.
Before we do anything, we should set a goal which is acceptable to
both the gcc/glibc developers.

BTW, personal opinion is a DSO used by every single binary, yes,
libgcc_s.so may be used by static binaries, should be treated the same
way as glibc. That is installing gcc shouldn't override libgcc_s.so
come with the system, one way or the other, unless it is broken, in
which case. update of libgcc_s.so should perferably come from the same
source as glibc.


H.J.