Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:17:37 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ABI is broken?? Message-ID: <3A013131.B8BD0BD7@FreeBSD.org> References: <3A005026.47B9978C@FreeBSD.org> <200011011835.eA1IZl207585@vashon.polstra.com> <3A006A58.E8315ABA@FreeBSD.org> <200011011914.eA1JE7c07768@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra wrote: > In article <3A006A58.E8315ABA@FreeBSD.org>, > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > > John Polstra wrote: > > > Overall I would lean toward putting the hack into pthread_mutex_lock. > > > Comments? > > > > Huh, why we can't just bump libc_r version number and put older (buggy) version into > > lib/compat as usually? This would not require any ugly hacks at all. > > The bug wasn't in libc_r -- it was in libgcc_r. That's a static > library, so it doesn't have a version number. And it is statically > linked into old executables. Nothing we do to libgcc_r will help old > executables, because they won't even use the new libgcc_r. Nope it should help, because the bug is triggered if someone tries to use old executables with new libc_r. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A013131.B8BD0BD7>