--- Comment #7 from Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net> ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #6)
> > the discussion about names is probably more appropriate on the libc side
> Adam, do you agree?

I agree with this statement, sure.  But I don't agree that there's any point in
having the discussion.  Essentially, you're asking for one of two possible
things here, as I see it:

1) We come up with a new set of interpreter paths, and have a
--break-abi-with-alternate-paths build option, or

2) We don't come up with any list, and have a
--break-abi-with-arbitrary-interpreter=/path option.

I don't see how providing options that encourage users to shoot themselves so
readily in their feet is a useful thing to do.   Sure, 99% of users never build
either gcc or glibc, and thus this is entirely hidden to them, but I still
don't see why the 0.0001% that deeply care about moving the interpreter on
their system can't just patch glibc and gcc in the two places necessary to make
that happen, rather than publishing a config interface that makes it look like
a supportable option in the toolchains that define those ABIs.

Reply via email to