From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2F3463870C0E; Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:54:01 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2F3463870C0E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1688133241;
	bh=Vesa/2GgypbQtMG5A6svxjJakuLPu4609wTzTGzneQs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jDZ8H3l0WCuThq50/kAJbTbWhjo1mOiAP0OzdRdTgrE/pKNL+5HxV6GlZyCazu5J6
	 SkHvLXl+U3tHRYcCqG+XvIIW7fYQiCjJ7PEghZi6+c07QkmEn+6IaOjy+X4T2rho+M
	 gM3yPrmj17M9/tn6X98mC9oM01IiNqZCDcS2Mo7g=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/110077] [14 regression] libstdc++-abi/abi_check FAILs
 on Solaris
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:54:00 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110077-4-toL28KWc1Q@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110077-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110077-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110077

--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
>> One solution would be to just add the declaration to the header, and adj=
ust
>> the exports so this new symbol is exported at GLIBCXX_3.4.32 not
>> GLIBCXX_3.4.31
>
> N.B. this is what we do for glibc-based linux targets. The symbol is pres=
ent in
> the library even when glibc doesn't provide strtof128. This means that we=
 don't
> have a different set of exported symbols when built on old or new glibc.
>
> If Solaris is ever going to get support for strtof128 and other _Float128
> support then that is probably what we should do here as well.

That would mean an implementation of C23 Annex H, right?  IIUC,
implementing that is optional.

However, I can reach out to determine if there are any plans for that.=