public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
@ 2007-06-08 20:06 appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-06-08 20:16 ` [Bug other/32263] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: appfault at hotmail dot com @ 2007-06-08 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
@ 2007-06-08 20:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-08 20:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-06-08 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-06-08 20:16 ` [Bug other/32263] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-06-08 20:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-11 16:35 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-06-08 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-06-08 20:16 ` [Bug other/32263] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-08 20:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-06-11 16:35 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-06-12 4:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: appfault at hotmail dot com @ 2007-06-11 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-06-11 16:35 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
@ 2007-06-12 4:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-13 17:56 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-06-12 4:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-06-12 4:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-06-13 17:56 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-12-02 21:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: appfault at hotmail dot com @ 2007-06-13 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-06-13 17:56 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
@ 2007-12-02 21:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-06 17:27 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-12-02 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-02 21:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-12-06 17:27 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2008-11-04 23:49 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2008-11-05 20:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: appfault at hotmail dot com @ 2007-12-06 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-06 17:27 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
@ 2008-11-04 23:49 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2008-11-05 20:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: appfault at hotmail dot com @ 2008-11-04 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/32263] Document the required versions of glibc and binutils
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-11-04 23:49 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
@ 2008-11-05 20:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-11-05 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-05 20:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-06-08 20:06 [Bug other/32263] New: Document the required versions of glibc and binutils appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-06-08 20:16 ` [Bug other/32263] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-08 20:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-11 16:35 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-06-12 4:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-13 17:56 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2007-12-02 21:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-06 17:27 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2008-11-04 23:49 ` appfault at hotmail dot com
2008-11-05 20:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).