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