Re: Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>
- Cc: Guido Guenther <agx@debian.org>, Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org>, GNU Libc Maintainers <debian-glibc@lists.debian.org>, Debian GCC maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:12:11 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20030217161211.GB17290@nevyn.them.org>
- Mail-followup-to: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Guido Guenther <agx@debian.org>, Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org>, GNU Libc Maintainers <debian-glibc@lists.debian.org>, Debian GCC maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 80isvj2ema.wl@oris.opensource.jp>
- References: <20030213144426.D3D511B968C@cyberhq.internal.cyberhqz.com> <[🔎] handler.s.C.104514746913656.transcript@bugs.debian.org> <[🔎] 801y2c3y3g.wl@oris.opensource.jp> <[🔎] 20030213214324.GW30881@cyberhqz.com> <[🔎] 80y94g2pk7.wl@oris.opensource.jp> <[🔎] 20030216223242.GK3199@bogon.ms20.nix> <[🔎] 80isvj2ema.wl@oris.opensource.jp>
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 10:58:21PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Hi Guido,
> Thanks for your explanation.
>
> At Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:32:42 +0100,
> Guido Guenther wrote:
> > I'm trying to explain how I understand these issues, but it might not be
> > correct:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:49:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > 1. Why is __fixunsdfdi appeared, on the contrary why is not __fixdfdi
> > > appeared
> > gcc does the double -> signed long long conversion inline but uses a
> > function call for the unsigned conversion.
>
> Hmm, I feel it's strange feature... There are no need to distinguish
> between signed and unsigned. Is it gcc bug?
The inlining is just based on cost. One of those operations is cheaper
than the other on 386 hardware.
> > For example:
> > /usr/bin/nm __udivdi3
> > /usr/bin/nm __umoddi3
> > /usr/bin/strip __ucmpdi2
> > /usr/bin/strip __udivdi3
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you mean... You mean that a binary
> has _udivdi3 or __umoddi3 and then drops its symbol with strip?
No, strip was just an example. And it's been rebuilt on i386 since
that measurement was made so you can't see it any more. But it goes
like this:
libbfd.so is built
it contains __udivdi3
strip is linked to -lbfd
it needs __udivdi3
it gets __udivdi3 from libbfd.so
libbfd.so is recompiled by GCC 3.2
it no longer provides __udivdi3
Until strip is recompiled, strip doesn't run.
> > > Well, dcgui (#179781) should be fixed with the latest glibc and gcc
> > > environment. Moreover, if binaries on woody/sarge works well, then I
> > > think we should not add this compat-patch even if sid binaries causes
> > > such unresolved symbol bug.
> > No. We only add symbols for the woody->sarge transition.
>
> So, is it debian specific patch?
Uh, I don't think it should be.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to:
- References:
- Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
- Re: Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>
- Re: Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- From: Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org>
- Re: Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>
- Re: Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- From: Guido Guenther <agx@debian.org>
- Re: Processed: reassign 179781 to glibc, severity of 179781 is serious, merging 179781 178645
- From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>