Re: the [de]register_frame_info definitions issues on Alpha
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:57:21 -0800 (PST), H.J. Lu wrote:
>> In summary, I know I can use the latest glibc 2.0/2.1 from CVS and
>> compile it with egcs 1.1.1/Linux, but I do not _want_ to be forced to,
>> it introduces unecessary requirements in the way systems are
>> upgraded, and in the circulation of binaries between systems.
>>
>
>You can do whatever you want as long as you don't distribute binaries
>nor run binaries compiled on other systems.
>
>However, in order to keep binary compatibility between different Linux
>systems, I am not talking about different Debian machines built by
>different Debian people at different times, it is referring to ALL
>Linux machines based on glibc 2, including RedHat, Debian, ...., it i
>s mandated to upgrade to the latest glibc 2.0/2.1 and egcs 1.1.1/Linux.
>That is one reason we made those changes. It is required. Period.
HJ overstates the situation a bit. We are not doing anything to 2.0,
and in fact you should NOT use egcs to compile libc 2.0 unless no
other compiler works on the platform in question - that was how the
__register_frame_info problem came up in the first place.
However, in 2.1, we've decided to insist that libc export
__register_frame_info and its friends, so that it isn't defined
anywhere else (multiple copies can cause programs to crash). That
means you have to use *some* version of egcs to compile libc 2.1. You
don't have to use HJ's patched egcs 1.1.1. (In fact, I'd recommend
that you don't use it - instead, examine each of his patches and
decide whether to apply it yourself. Some of them are good, some are
not.)
As long as you use egcs to compile libc 2.1, you can use whatever
compiler you like to compile everything else.
zw
Reply to: