| 1 |
On 31 May 2015 15:52, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:50:49 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default toolchain flags |
| 5 |
> > > or even better patch glibc headers to always redefine these |
| 6 |
> > > functions to the 64bits variants? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > No, because that can easily break ABI of programs that actually want |
| 9 |
> > the non-LFS one (for instance anything that wraps around function |
| 10 |
> > calls, including but not limited to padsp, aoss, and similar |
| 11 |
> > wrappers.) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This seems easily fixed with an opt-out for lfs flags that such |
| 14 |
> programs can use. They'll need to be touched to disable the QA warning |
| 15 |
> anyway. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
this is a discussion for upstream toolchain packages (largely glibc) and in fact |
| 18 |
i started such a heretical thread over a year ago. it was not well received due |
| 19 |
to the implicit/silent ABI change that new builds would receive. glibc likes to |
| 20 |
be conservative as it is the foundation of everything. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
so unless glibc changes, updating our copy of glibc would only somewhat help our |
| 23 |
users. conversely, getting the changes pushed to the respective upstream would |
| 24 |
help everyone. |
| 25 |
-mike |
Archives