[Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[appfault at hotmail dot com]

Document the required versions of glibc and binutils.

Typically only a couple versions of glibc and binutils are compatible with each
version of gcc, and finding out which ones are compatible is often quite
time-consuming.  While "gcc/doc/gccinstall.info" does document some minimum
versions, it should also document maximum known-working versions as of the
release date of gcc, since later versions invariably regress to being
incompatible again.


-- 
           Summary: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: other
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: appfault at hotmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-08 20:16 -------
HUH? I had never had any problems with older versions of GCC with newer
versions of binutils.  If you do then either it is a bug in the older version
of GCC (which is likely) or a bug in the newer binutils (which is also likely).
 If you have issues with either, then you should provide more details.  I have
used GCC 2.95.3-4.1 with binutils 2.17 (which is quiet new) without any
troubles and glibc 2.3.6 with GCC 2.95.3 (which had one issue with respect of
locales) to 4.1 without any issues.  So I don't see what we need to document
here really.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-08 20:18 -------
I think we need more information from you about what issues you are running
into.
I also use glibc 2.3.2 with many different versions of GCC too.  I still don't
see what regressions you are talking about anyways.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[appfault at hotmail dot com]

------- Comment #3 from appfault at hotmail dot com  2007-06-11 16:35 -------
Well here's one example:

http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/lunar-dev/2006-July/005821.html is the error
you get when bootstrapping using binutils 2.17 with gcc 3.4.6 and glibc 2.3.6. 
Reverting to binutils 2.15 fixes the issue.  So in this case gcc 3.4.6
should've documented that it worked up to binutils 2.15.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-12 04:34 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well here's one example:
> 
> http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/lunar-dev/2006-July/005821.html is the error

Actually that is a build failure with glibc.  The real question is, does glibc
have requirements.  GCC almost has no requirements on what maxium
glibc/binutils version it can be built with.  glibc has some requirements
though.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[appfault at hotmail dot com]

------- Comment #5 from appfault at hotmail dot com  2007-06-13 17:56 -------
Ok well, I'll take your word on that, since I can't really tell where gcc and
ld end and glibc begins.  It's perhaps glibc that is in need of better
documentation then.  However if I file such a zilla I suspect it will quickly
be marked duplicate of http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=333
...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-02 21:35 -------
This is not a bug which GCC can fix really so closing as invalid.  GCC can be
used with many older glibc.  Though sometimes newer GCC can cause older glibc
to fail build.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[appfault at hotmail dot com]

------- Comment #7 from appfault at hotmail dot com  2007-12-06 17:26 -------
Instead of trying to lock down the full and complete list of acceptable glibs,
you could at least give a hint as to what GCC was using at the time a given
release did work.

A "known working version" list seems very simple to maintain.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[appfault at hotmail dot com]

------- Comment #8 from appfault at hotmail dot com  2008-11-04 23:47 -------
Reopen to at least consider comment 7.


-- 

appfault at hotmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-05 20:11 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> A "known working version" list seems very simple to maintain.
Again this is not really a GCC question.  As mentioned before the requirements
of GCC itself is almost nothing.  It is question for glibc to keep the list of
required versions of GCC which can compile that version of glibc and not really
up to us to keep that list.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

[Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32263

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-19 06:08:52 UTC ---
It is hard for GCC to know what other projects have issues with GCC changes so
closing as invalid again.