From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-ports-return-2661-listarch-libc-ports=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26917 invoked by alias); 16 May 2012 21:42:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 26906 invoked by uid 22791); 16 May 2012 21:42:01 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from toast.topped-with-meat.com (HELO topped-with-meat.com) (204.197.218.159)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:41:49 +0000
Received: by topped-with-meat.com (Postfix, from userid 5281)	id 19DA22C0A8; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: libc-ports@sourceware.org,    "Ryan S. Arnold" <ryan.arnold@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: powerpc-nofpu ABI baselines
In-Reply-To: Joseph S. Myers's message of  Wednesday, 16 May 2012 21:37:18 +0000 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205162123360.32674@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205162119220.32674@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1205162123360.32674@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Message-Id: <20120516214148.19DA22C0A8@topped-with-meat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:42:00 -0000
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=e8d9udV/ c=1 sm=1 a=Z6MIti7PxpgA:10		a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=CCpqsmhAAAAA:8 a=Pzc2Ok24CucfhU9UwoIA:9		a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=S4UZ5Nezph4A:10 a=WkljmVdYkabdwxfqvArNOQ==:117
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-ports.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-ports-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-ports@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-ports-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2

> @@ -1845,6 +1844,31 @@
>   __xpg_sigpause F
>   __xstat64 F
>   _flushlbf F
> + _q_add F
> 
> [...]
> 
> See <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2007-10/msg00004.html>.  These 
> functions are in GLIBC_2.2 version but would not have been in glibc 2.2 
> and would never actually have been useful.  Do we want to record them as 
> part of the GLIBC_2.2 ABI to preserve, or remove them?

The relevant question is when the bug came in such that _q_add was
exported.  If it has been that way for some widely-used versions, then
it's likely that there are binaries referring to the symbol.  In that
case, we can't really take it out even though it's an inaccurate
representation of what 2.2 was.