Loren James Rittle wrote:
FYI, the libstdc++-v3 maintainers on the FSF side are only
guaranteeing forward ABI compatibility of any sort if libstdc++.so is
built with symbol versioning and symbol hiding.
FWIW: symbol versioning is incredibly broken. It attempts to
do in UNIX what interface
Loren James Rittle wrote:
FWIW: symbol versioning is incredibly broken. It attempts to
do in UNIX what interface versioning does in Windows, through
the use of class factories accessed via IUnknown.
You might be absolutely correct in general. However, please read
Doug Rabson wrote:
In the windows world, all this is handled by having a strict list of explicit
symbol exports, either in the source code using syntax extensions or with a
file supplied to the linker. I'm not sure whether binutils supports this kind
of thing but it would allow us to cut
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: If the final word on this whole issue is You can't run binaries
: compiled for 4.x-RELEASE on 5.x-RELEASE then we should start puckering
: up.
:
: Developers tend to remember these things and you don't have to
On (2002/11/08 18:13), Daniel Eischen wrote:
The problem is that you cannot have 4.x packages and 5.x packages
co-mingled on the same system. that's what I'm trying to fix. You'd
have to rebuild the 4.x packages before they are fixed.
I don't think this is a show-stopper. Just
On Friday 08 November 2002 11:13 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the release anyways,
: so this doesn't affect fresh
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Doug Rabson wrote:
On Friday 08 November 2002 11:13 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
This is not a fly in the pointment, but rather a major
incompatibility that makes it impossible to have a reasonable mix.
If it's really a
On Saturday 09 November 2002 4:28 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Doug Rabson wrote:
On Friday 08 November 2002 11:13 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
This is not a fly in the pointment, but rather a major
incompatibility that makes it
Doug Rabson wrote:
The kernel ABI is hopeless. It changes almost daily :-(. At one time, I
thought I could change this but these days, I don't think anyone except
me cares about having a stable ABI in the kernel.
I care. It's almost the most important thing to be able to build
anything of
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: If you can't agree on a coordinate system (OLDCARD? NEWCARD?
: REDCARD? BLUECARD?), then at least agree to get rid of data
: interfaces;
Ironically, NEWCARD and OLDCARD are driver compatible because it
doesn't
On Thursday 07 November 2002 9:42 pm, Tim Kientzle wrote:
Terry Lambert asked:
Any chance we could get rid of all externally visable symbols that
are not defined as being there by some standard, and not just __sF,
since we are breaking the FORTRAN compiler and other third party
code
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 02:45:04 2002
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:39:35 -0700 (MST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING
From: M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ray Kohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Doug Rabson wrote:
It _would_ be a good idea to document any internal library
symbols used by macros. Removing such symbols is a
good way to break existing compiled applications.
Library design involves a lot of tradeoffs.
In the windows world, all this is handled by having a strict
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ray Kohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 02:45:04 2002
: Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:39:35 -0700 (MST)
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING
: From: M. Warner Losh [EMAIL
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 11:30:05 2002
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:27:32 -0700 (MST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING
From: M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ray Kohler
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ray Kohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 02:45:04 2002
: Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:39:35 -0700 (MST)
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:17:00PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
Yes, but this is too painful. If we were going to do this, the time
for the pain was 6-9 months ago, not just before the release.
All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the
+---[ Steve Kargl ]--
|
| I agree with Dan. Let's do it now. My understanding is
| that 5.0 will be an early adopter release and production
| systems should run 4.7{8,9,..} until 5.1 is released.
|
| To accomplish the change, I think we need to do:
| 1. Install a
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:16:11AM +1000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
6. Assume Crash Position.
Thanks for your important contribution to a discussion
which is addressing a rather serious problem. Here's the
important part of the Ghost... thread.
The following 4.7 libs make reference to
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the release anyways,
: so this doesn't affect fresh installs, correct? It is only a
: problem when mixing older 4.x and 5.0 libraries/binaries with
: __sF-free libc (if I
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:17:00PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
: On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:
:
: Yes, but this is too painful. If we were going to do this, the time
: for the pain was 6-9
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Here's the fun part. The following 5.0 libraries have the same
: version number as their 4.x counterparts. Try running a 4.x
: app linked against one of these libaries on a 5.0 machine. You
: should also note that
Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
+---[ Steve Kargl ]--
|
| I agree with Dan. Let's do it now. My understanding is
| that 5.0 will be an early adopter release and production
| systems should run 4.7{8,9,..} until 5.1 is released.
|
| To accomplish the change, I think we
M. Warner Losh wrote:
My plan is as follows:
1) Restore __sF to libc for 5.0.
2) Fix 4.x binaries so that __sF isn't referened in new
binaries. This should have been done in Aug 2001, but
wasn't.
Depending on how things go, __sF will be removed in
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the release anyways,
: so this doesn't affect fresh installs, correct? It is only a
: problem when mixing older 4.x and
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the release anyways,
: : so
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : All the ports are going
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 04:16:06PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I'd love for there to be a way to know which binaries use __sF.
The following script run on your bin, sbin, lib, and libexec directories
does a pretty decent job of finding files that contain refrences to __sF
and listing the ports
Quoting Brooks Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 04:16:06PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
| I'd love for there to be a way to know which binaries use __sF.
|
| The following script run on your bin, sbin, lib, and libexec directories
| does a pretty decent job of finding
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:22:13PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I did remove the $ from $*. I thought it was running too fast :-)
You're supposed to pass it a list of files not run it in a directory.
-- Brooks
--
Any statement of the form X is the one, true Y is FALSE.
PGP
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:05:23PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 04:16:06PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I'd love for there to be a way to know which binaries use __sF.
The following script run on your bin, sbin, lib, and libexec directories
does a pretty decent job of
At 6:13 PM -0500 11/8/02, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the release anyways,
: so this doesn't affect fresh installs, correct? It
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooks Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 04:16:06PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: I'd love for there to be a way to know which binaries use __sF.
:
: The following script run on your bin, sbin, lib, and libexec directories
: does
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: M. Warner Losh said:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : M. Warner Losh said:
: : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: : Steven G. Kargl
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Could someone add the following patch to UPDATING?
: Change the words to whatever suits your fancy.
I'm trying to devise a good way to
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:40:32AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Could someone add the following patch to UPDATING?
: Change the words
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I rebuilt cvsup from net/cvsup yesterday on a new world, and
it appears to be working fine. What problems should I expect?
It's possible that if you already have a working installation of pm3
or ezm3, you'll be able to build
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:21:53AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I rebuilt cvsup from net/cvsup yesterday on a new world, and
it appears to be working fine. What problems should I expect?
It's possible that if you already
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:21:53AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
It's possible that if you already have a working installation of pm3
or ezm3, you'll be able to build CVSup on -current. But if you try to
build pm3 or ezm3
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
: M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : Could someone add the following patch to
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:35:19AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:21:53AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
It's possible that if you already have a working installation of pm3
or ezm3, you'll be able to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:35:19AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
That would surprise me, but I haven't tried it myself. Inspection
of the ezm3 bootstrap shows that it has references to __sF.
Well, I just pkg_deinstall's
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: FWIW, the only OS fix that will make stock ezm3/pm3/CVSup buildable on
: -current is to make __sF global again and arrange for:
:
:
Terry Lambert asked:
Any chance we could get rid of all externally visable symbols that
are not defined as being there by some standard, and not just __sF,
since we are breaking the FORTRAN compiler and other third party
code already?
This cannot be entirely done if you still want to
manage
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
: M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: : FWIW, the only OS fix that will make stock
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: It's not CVSup, it's Modula-3. It thinks it knows that stdin,
: stdout, and stderr are defined as above, but they're not any more.
:
Tim Kientzle wrote:
Terry Lambert asked:
Any chance we could get rid of all externally visable symbols that
are not defined as being there by some standard, and not just __sF,
since we are breaking the FORTRAN compiler and other third party
code already?
This cannot be entirely done if
M. Warner Losh wrote:
Gotcha. I'm thinking very seriously about keeping __sF support (but
creating no new binaries with it in it) and the freeze on sizeof(FILE)
through the 5.x series of releases because we botched the
compatibility stuff so badly to give people a chance to catch their
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 7 18:30:04 2002
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:26:57 -0800
From: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING
Specifically, I do not buy the idea that there is a necessity
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: Gotcha. I'm thinking very seriously about keeping __sF support (but
: creating no new binaries with it in it) and the freeze on sizeof(FILE)
: through the 5.x series of releases because
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ray Kohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Hear hear, I agree. There's no need to expose what ought to be
: private data to the world, especially when we can get the additional
: benefit here of letting us play with the implementation.
-current already does
M. Warner Losh wrote:
-current already does this. The problem is that we're trying to shoot
the bad access in the head, and that is what is screwing people. So
the problem isn't that we're trying to export private data to the
world. Quite the contrary, we're trying to eliminate it and
Steven G. Kargl wrote:
Could someone add the following patch to UPDATING?
Change the words to whatever suits your fancy.
+20021031
+ Revision 1.24 of lib/libc/stdio/findfp.c has made __sF static.
+ This changes the visibility of __sF to a symbol internal to
+ libc. All
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:38:55PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Steven G. Kargl wrote:
Could someone add the following patch to UPDATING?
Change the words to whatever suits your fancy.
+20021031
+ Revision 1.24 of lib/libc/stdio/findfp.c has made __sF static.
+ This changes
Steve Kargl wrote:
Any chance we could get rid of all externally visable symbols that
are not defined as being there by some standard, and not just __sF,
since we are breaking the FORTRAN compiler and other third party
code already?
This isn't restricted to my Fortran 95 problem, which
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Could someone add the following patch to UPDATING?
: Change the words to whatever suits your fancy.
I'm trying to devise a good way to deal with this breakage and hope it
is transient. I'm not hopeful :-( I'll
M. Warner Losh said:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Could someone add the following patch to UPDATING?
: Change the words to whatever suits your fancy.
I'm trying to devise a good way to deal with this breakage and hope it
is
M. Warner Losh said:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: M. Warner Losh said:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : Could someone add the following patch to UPDATING?
: : Change the
58 matches
Mail list logo
