From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Jamie Lokier Cc: John Polstra , egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 12:28:00 -0000 Message-id: <29042.923598900@upchuck> References: <19990408185632.A21668@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00268.html In message < 19990408185632.A21668@pcep-jamie.cern.ch >you write: > Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > Previously the library would always have those routines, even if it did > > not use EH. > > > > And any program which referenced that library on the link line would > > get those routines via the library intead of getting its own copies. > > > > Now you recompile the library. It no longer gets the EH routines. Blam > > your user program stops working. > > Presumably this is all solved by using Glibc 2.1? > > In which case, simply recommend that EGCS users upgrade to Glibc 2.1, > the weak references can stay, and executables avoid pointless bloat. No. It is not an acceptable solution. The binary incompatability brought on by egcs-1.1.2 is not acceptable and must be fixed. Requiring folks to upgrade to glibc-2.1 is not an acceptable "solution". This is precisely why we have to think much harder about the interfaces that we put into libgcc. Once there, they have to remain forever. jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Jamie Lokier Cc: John Polstra , egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <29042.923598900@upchuck> References: <19990408185632.A21668@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> X-SW-Source: 1999-04n/msg00271.html Message-ID: <19990430231500.WOOf3eEkjeo5UNMvHjFOHgKhyKW6oFHwTOWMgYwhnKM@z> In message < 19990408185632.A21668@pcep-jamie.cern.ch >you write: > Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > Previously the library would always have those routines, even if it did > > not use EH. > > > > And any program which referenced that library on the link line would > > get those routines via the library intead of getting its own copies. > > > > Now you recompile the library. It no longer gets the EH routines. Blam > > your user program stops working. > > Presumably this is all solved by using Glibc 2.1? > > In which case, simply recommend that EGCS users upgrade to Glibc 2.1, > the weak references can stay, and executables avoid pointless bloat. No. It is not an acceptable solution. The binary incompatability brought on by egcs-1.1.2 is not acceptable and must be fixed. Requiring folks to upgrade to glibc-2.1 is not an acceptable "solution". This is precisely why we have to think much harder about the interfaces that we put into libgcc. Once there, they have to remain forever. jeff