|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] RedHat 7.1 glibc2.1 Backward compat - revisited
|
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:44:49PM -0400, Greg Lopp wrote:
> Unstable? The folks at redhat seem to think that gcc 2.96 is more
> standards compliant than the kernel code.
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20593 suggests
> that all this fuss is over some syntax "errors". What is all this
> "binary incompatible" stuff coming from? To restate an earlier
> question : can anyone point me to a decent _technical_ explanation of
> this problem?
All the fuss is about changes in gcc. Gcc does some asm stuff differnetly
than it used to. Compilers and kernels are pretty complex. The lkml faq
explains why there's a recomended compiler for the kernel source tree.
If you're interested in the "binary incompatible" nonsense, read up on
assembler languages. You never hear about it because really, its the
compilers job to do it properly for you. Properly being 'consistantly'.
The gcc problem resulted from changes to gcc. THese same problems can
happen when you compile the kernel with a different compiler... say egcs
or pgcc. They're untested and do things differently than the 'recomended
gcc' does.
The point of the whole issue was that RH threw away the control. The
compiler was a constant. So when there was a bug, was it in the compiler,
or in the kernel. It made problems harder to track down.
If you want a technical explanation, go search the kernel mailing list.
--
Mental
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|