linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips
From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:44:46 -0800
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Emacs: impress your (remaining) friends and neighbors.
In-reply-to: H. J. Lu's message of Tuesday, 5 November 2002 19:23:28 -0800 <20021105192328.A2230@lucon.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:53:17PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > Here's what my MIPS glibc has:
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  sys_errlist
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   sys_errlist
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  _sys_errlist
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   _sys_errlist
> > 
> > Ok, that says sys_nerr=123 in 2.0 and sys_nerr=1134 in 2.2.
> > I have changed the map to have just those.
> 
> Please keep in mind that the next version is GLIBC_2.1, not
> GLIBC_2.2. The reason you see GLIBC_2.2 is GLIBC_2.2 is the
> first versioned ABI for MIPS.

I don't think it's meaningful to make the distinction.  If we wrote
GLIBC_2.1, shlib-versions causes it to be GLIBC_2.2, but that's more
confusing.  Now it says GLIBC_2.2, and that's what you get.  There was
never a "sys_errlist@GLIBC_2.1" symbol in any binary, so it doesn't make
sense to have that version set.  

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>