From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) Cc: egcs@tantalophile.demon.co.uk (Jamie Lokier), egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 12:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <29123.923599928@upchuck> References: X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00270.html In message < m10VIdz-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org >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. Bla > m > > > your user program stops working. > > > > Presumably this is all solved by using Glibc 2.1? > > > > Or they can use the latest glibc 2.0 via CVS. I am willing to set up a > ftp site with tar files. What am I not being clear about? This kind of binary breakage is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if you put a new glibc somewhere. Breaking binaries like that patch did is not acceptable. jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) Cc: egcs@tantalophile.demon.co.uk (Jamie Lokier), egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <29123.923599928@upchuck> References: X-SW-Source: 1999-04n/msg00273.html Message-ID: <19990430231500.a5ALP69tyByp8X77ceevcBAXbreeO5E2T61KMpp9KZ8@z> In message < m10VIdz-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org >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. Bla > m > > > your user program stops working. > > > > Presumably this is all solved by using Glibc 2.1? > > > > Or they can use the latest glibc 2.0 via CVS. I am willing to set up a > ftp site with tar files. What am I not being clear about? This kind of binary breakage is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if you put a new glibc somewhere. Breaking binaries like that patch did is not acceptable. jeff