From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68152 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2015 13:19:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 68141 invoked by uid 89); 7 Apr 2015 13:19:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:19:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t37DIxLO002822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:19:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (ovpn-116-96.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.96]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t37DIw4g013805; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:18:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:19:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Wakely To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Bill Schmidt , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000, libstdc++] Add baseline_symbols.txt for powerpc64le-linux-gnu Message-ID: <20150407131858.GD9755@redhat.com> References: <1428373888.2816.53.camel@gnopaine> <20150407130905.GE19273@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150407130905.GE19273@tucnak.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 On 07/04/15 15:09 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:31:28PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> It was recently pointed out that we still don't have a separate >> baseline_symbols.txt for powerpc64le-linux-gnu. This patch modifies >> configure.host to create a new abi_baseline_pair for powerpc64le and >> provides the generated symbol file (from "make new-abi-baseline"). >> >> Is this ok for stage4, or should I hold it until after 5.1 branches? [Please CC libstdc++ patches to the libstdc++ list as well as gcc-patches, thanks] >What other target has the baseline_symbols.txt closest to the >powerpc64le-linux-gnu one? Can you post the diff from that one, say >powerpc64-linux-gnu or whatever other 64-bit one that has the smallest diff. Yes, that would be useful. There may also be symbols missing that should be in the baseline: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65670 >There are important details like if the TLS symbols are omitted (otherwise >you get failures when trying to build the compiler with TLS disabled). > >Otherwise, sure, updating baseline files is desirable before release, it >would be good to update them for the existing arches too, will try to do >that this week.