https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33209

--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #2)
> Yes, Andreas Huettel and I were just discussing commit
> 9167304255940e29423517f63d11bdd968d7685e (he found it right away).
> 
> This is not at all what I was expect was going to happen, so much so that I
> didn't think to just look for explicitly like this.
> 
> Adding a dependency on a fixed GLIBC_2.36 to capture a dependency on the fix
> provided by f8587a61892cbafd98ce599131bf4f103466f084 is both difficult to
> backport and causes odd dependency issues.
> 
> I think a clearer solution would have been to add another glibc version
> entry for tracking feature e.g. GLIBC_ABI_X86_64_PLT to mark the point at
> which the feature became usable.

It isn't too late to do that.  Please open a binutils bug if it is desirable.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Reply via email to