llvm.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 5:41:29 AM
To: unlv...@live.com
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/115907] Libstdc++ and GCC itself should avoid glibc
above 2.34 dependency
https://gcc.gnu.o
llvm is making
libc. We will finally see everyone moves to llvm.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 5:41:29 AM
To: unlv...@live.com
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/115907] Libstdc++ and GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #58 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #43)
> If GNU folks continue f things up, I can guarantee
> you everyone will move to LLVM
You keep saying this, but you're still here. Feel free to leave any time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #54 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #48)
> Please stop resetting the bug status. You create unneeded churn. This bug
> is invalid.
>
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #43)
> > This is completely BS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #53 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #48)
> Please stop resetting the bug status. You create unneeded churn. This bug
> is invalid.
>
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #43)
> > This is completely BS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #52 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #47)
> Apple provides different sysroots for each (major) version of their OS to
> solve this issue. This is NOT a GCC issue nor this is a glibc issue. You can
> buld gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #51 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #48)
> Please stop resetting the bug status. You create unneeded churn. This bug
> is invalid.
>
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #43)
> > This is completely BS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #50 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #48)
> Please stop resetting the bug status. You create unneeded churn. This bug
> is invalid.
>
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #43)
> > This is completely BS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #48 from Arsen Arsenović ---
Please stop resetting the bug status. You create unneeded churn. This bug is
invalid.
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #43)
> This is completely BS. Old libc cannot build with the latest gcc since th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #44 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #42)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #41)
> > I ran into exact the same trouble of C23 missing symbols on old systems. In
> > my case it is a custom build (with ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #42 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #41)
> I ran into exact the same trouble of C23 missing symbols on old systems. In
> my case it is a custom build (with tailored source) of libfreeimage which
> has som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #38 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #35)
> Unless the "old enough glibc" won't be able to build latest GCC. Even glibc
> 2.25 (which is centos stucks with).
File a bug or write a patch. I'm not sure how y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #36 from cqwrteur ---
Also, it is a waste of energy and time to build the same compiler on different
machines over and over again instead of just building one, packaging it and
distributed it among many machines. Plus Cloud servers h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #35 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #34)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #29)
> > I don't know how you do that. It is impossible to upgrade glibc on any of my
> > linux distributions. I tried ubuntu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #34 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #29)
> I don't know how you do that. It is impossible to upgrade glibc on any of my
> linux distributions. I tried ubuntu, arch linux. Neither of them allows me
> to upg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #33 from cqwrteur ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Configure-Terms.html
"If build and target are the same, but host is different, you are using a cross
compiler to build a cross compiler that produces code for the machine y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #32 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #31)
> > Why not? It has to pull libraries and headers from somewhere (note that I
> > do not know what "crossback" means).
> >
> > Note that there is desire to not predefine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #31 from cqwrteur ---
> Why not? It has to pull libraries and headers from somewhere (note that I
> do not know what "crossback" means).
>
> Note that there is desire to not predefine _GNU_SOURCE in C++ modes. See
> the PRs Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #30 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #29)
> (In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #28)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #26)
> > > > The c++ frontend has defined _GNU_Source since at least 2001.
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #28 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #26)
> > The c++ frontend has defined _GNU_Source since at least 2001.
>
> You are de facto, breaking abi without any good reason. You break
> cross-compiling for linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #22 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Arsen Arsenović from comment #20)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #17)
> > Then why? Why does it define _ISOC2X_SOURCE? C++ is not even C.
>
> "it"? presuming you mean glibc, because _GNU_SOU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #20 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #17)
> Then why? Why does it define _ISOC2X_SOURCE? C++ is not even C.
"it"? presuming you mean glibc, because _GNU_SOURCES enables all features,
including the C2X spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #18 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > > There is NO fix inside gcc/libstdc++.
> > > THe only fix is your build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #13 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #12)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > There is NO fix inside gcc/libstdc++.
> > THe only fix is your build of GCC (which includes the target libraries)
> > nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #12 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> There is NO fix inside gcc/libstdc++.
> THe only fix is your build of GCC (which includes the target libraries)
> needs to be build against the oldest version of gli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #11 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> There is NO fix inside gcc/libstdc++.
> THe only fix is your build of GCC (which includes the target libraries)
> needs to be build against the oldest version of gli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #10 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> There is NO fix inside gcc/libstdc++.
> THe only fix is your build of GCC (which includes the target libraries)
> needs to be build against the oldest version of gli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #9 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> There is NO fix inside gcc/libstdc++.
> THe only fix is your build of GCC (which includes the target libraries)
> needs to be build against the oldest version of glib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 58654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58654&action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Note while glibc is backwards compatibility, it is not forward compatible.
> So if you build against the newest version of glibc, it will always use the
> newest symb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note while glibc is backwards compatibility, it is not forward compatible. So
if you build against the newest version of glibc, it will always use the newest
symbols and that is by design.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115907
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 58652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58652&action=edit
dependency
60 matches
Mail list logo
