[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: alpha and hppa removal from unstable/experimental



On 27/04/11 10:51, Witold Baryluk wrote:
On 04-14 21:09, Michael Cree wrote:
On 04/04/11 05:25, Matt Turner wrote:
This is partly due to the fact that I hate trying to submit things to
glibc. Also that I don't have any time right now. But mostly because I
hate glibc development.

So, is there someone in this new Alpha porting team that can help
Matt with upstream support on the Alpha port of glibc?

I am baulking at it as I am thinking about putting some effort into
binutils, particularly ld, and see if I can fix the relax code path
of the linker.  I suspect that will have quite a nice flow-on effect
of fixing quite a few problems with plugins and the linking of large
C++ programs.

As You know, I already tries to help (testing, bisecting, minimising)
in this case. Unfortunetly I always have problem with understating
how the whole dynamic linking works under linux. I like digging more into
assembly and compiler alone, without linker magic.

Well, that's good if you focus on the assembler and compiler and I take a look at the linker.

Currently the Debian version of gcc-4.6 does not build [1]. The current version (4.6.0-5) with an updated binutils (2.21.51.20110419-2 with the tls fix) still has the bootstrap comparison error. It would be good to get that fixed since it is planned to skip gcc-4.5 and move straight to gcc-4.6 for wheezy.

The patch you posted to the binutils' bugzilla [1]
solves a proble in tls relax case, but I have no idea,
if this is correct solution and will not introduce any regressions.

Probably only Richard Henderson can tell. :)

Yeah, I plan to contact Richard directly to discuss the linker issues. There are number of failures in the test suite that should be fixed.

Cheers
Michael.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha/2011/03/msg00019.html


Reply to: