R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
(Interestingly, the fixes in glibc-cvs
seem to have been made in such a way that
the new glibc won't be compilable by older
versions of gcc, like gcc-3.4.4.
I guess the thinking is that everyone should be using the latest gcc?)
Hmm, do you have a source for any more info? I want to take a look at this.
For some reason, I wanted to be able to build glibc-2.3.5
with gcc-4.0.0, so I rustled up a bunch of little
patches to fix some of the most obvious build problems.
I was careful to allow building with either old or new
compiler. For instance,
http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/glibc-2.3.5/glibc-2.3.4-allow-gcc-4.0-arm.patch
did
-static Elf32_Addr
+#if __GNUC__ >= 4
+ auto inline Elf32_Addr
+#else
+ static inline Elf32_Addr
+#endif
+#if __GNUC__ >= 4 || (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 2)
+ __attribute ((always_inline))
+#endif
but glibc-cvs just did
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/sysdeps/arm/Attic/dl-machine.h.diff?r1=1.51&r2=1.52&cvsroot=glibc
-static Elf32_Addr
+ auto inline Elf32_Addr
+ __attribute ((always_inline))
That's what makes me think the glibc maintainers are more interested
in a clean source tree than building with old compilers.
(And I don't disagree with them; I was just surprised.)
- Dan
