Re: [PATCH, rs6000, libstdc++] Add baseline_symbols.txt for powerpc64le-linux-gnu

[Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 09:49 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 08:39:37AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >> Posted below the differences from powerpc64-linux-gnu.  A surprising
> >> number of additional symbols, but none are missing in the new baseline.
> >> (Perhaps powerpc64-linux-gnu needs updating?)
> >
> > Sure, it needs updating.
> >
> > So, if I filter the GLIBCXX_3.4.21 and CXXABI_1.3.9 symbols from your diff,
> > I get
> > grep -v '@@GLIBCXX_3.4.21\|@@CXXABI_1.3.9' /tmp/XX | grep @
> >> TLS:8:_ZSt11__once_call@@GLIBCXX_3.4.11
> >> TLS:8:_ZSt15__once_callable@@GLIBCXX_3.4.11
> >
> > which are the two lines you should manually remove.
> > But then, it means the powerpc64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linux-gnu
> > baseline_symbols.txt are identical, so the question is if we really need
> > to duplicate it, instead of just telling in the configury that for
> > powerpc64le-linux-gnu it should use the powerpc64-linux-gnu
> > baseline_symbols.txt.
> 
> I thought that they are using the same baseline_symbols.txt at the
> moment and Bill's patch explicitly separates them in configure.  If
> the files are identical, then no need to separate them and no need for
> the patch.  If/when they diverge for a good reason (IEEE long
> double?), we can revisit the patch.

I agree, at the moment it appears they are sharing the same
baseline_symbols.txt.  If there's no reason to split them, then let's
forget all about it for now until a good reason comes along.  Thanks for
helping me work through this.

Bill

> 
> Thanks, David
>