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

Re: new ppc libgcc-compat code in glibc-2-2-branch



At Wed, 21 Aug 2002 01:40:54 -0400 (EDT),
Jack Howarth wrote:
>    The revised gcc-3.2-compatible sysdeps/powerpc/libgcc-compat.S code
> is now checked into glibc-2-2-branch. I have built both the straight
> glibc-2-2-branch checkout as well as debian glibc packages based off
> of the 2.2.5-14 source package, by creating a new cvs patch vs the
> current glibc-2-2-branch. In both cases, the glibc builds fine and
> passes all of make check. On ppc we are set now for you to do
> your glibc-2-2-branch cvs pull for glibc-2.2.5-15.

Congratulations!
I've put the newest glibc cvs into debian's cvs.

> The only caveat
> at the moment is that you will need to wait for Chris Chimelis
> to push his new binutils 2.13.90.0.4-1 packages into sid. Also
> with this new pull from the cvs we will need a Depends added to
> glibc on binutils (>=2.13.90.0.4) for the ppc. This is because
> the new libgcc-compat code tickles some obscure binutils bugs
> when the libc.so.6 from this code is used to build programs
> against gcc < 3.1 (e.g. gcc 2.95.4). This bug is described here...
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-08/msg00173.html
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-08/msg00175.html
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-08/msg00180.html

OK, we wait for binutils 2.13.90.0.4...

> With the new binutils 2.13.90.0.4 and a current pull from
> glibc-2-2-branch, debian ppc will be in excellent shape to
> be one of the first, if not the first, platform to switch
> over to gcc 3.2 builds in debian ppc sid.
>                         Jack
> ps FYI, with the new expect 3.80-1 package that was added into
> debian sid (fixing a bug causing spurious false failures in
> the gcc testsuite), the current gcc 3.2 package in sid now
> passes the testsuite correctly (matching the results that
> are seen by Franz Sirl).

That's fine.
We got one of advances for the transition to gcc-3.2 :)

Thanks,
-- gotom



Reply to: