Re: how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Michael Fedrowitz
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 02:58:44PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: Hi, >I'm not sure. I know I was told that hppa was okay. Also from my > conversations with Jakub it appears i386, ia-64, alpha and sparc32 > should be fine. So I would suggest we focus on checking the status > of arm, hurd-i386, m

Re: how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Jeff Bailey
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 02:58:44PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: >I'm not sure. I know I was told that hppa was okay. Also from my > conversations with Jakub it appears i386, ia-64, alpha and sparc32 > should be fine. So I would suggest we focus on checking the status > of arm, hurd-i386, m68k, m

Re: how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Jack Howarth
Matthias, I'm not sure. I know I was told that hppa was okay. Also from my conversations with Jakub it appears i386, ia-64, alpha and sparc32 should be fine. So I would suggest we focus on checking the status of arm, hurd-i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, s390 and sh. I'm not sure how many of those arch

Re: how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Gerhard Tonn
On Saturday 12 October 2002 19:48, Matthias Klose wrote: > Jack Howarth writes: > > Hi, > >I am not filing a bug on this right now, but you should > > all be aware that any arch that wants to switch to gcc 3.2 > > as its default compiler will need to address the following > > issue. The libgcc

Re: how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Matthias Klose
Jack Howarth writes: > Hi, >I am not filing a bug on this right now, but you should > all be aware that any arch that wants to switch to gcc 3.2 > as its default compiler will need to address the following > issue. The libgcc symbols starting in gcc 3.1 are now .hidden > which means breakage of

Re: how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-08-15 Thread Jack Howarth
Actually Jakub sent me the following e-mail just a few moments ago... -- On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > Jakub, >Can I assume you actually checked all the other > arches that redhat has shipped a linux for

Re: how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-08-15 Thread Martin v. Loewis
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is unclear how many arches have been checked at this point other > than ia64 and ppc; I am assuming i386 must be okay. It's an issue on i386 as well. Regards, Martin

how to find symbols needed for libgcc-compat in glibc

2002-08-15 Thread Jack Howarth
Hi, I am not filing a bug on this right now, but you should all be aware that any arch that wants to switch to gcc 3.2 as its default compiler will need to address the following issue. The libgcc symbols starting in gcc 3.1 are now .hidden which means breakage of old binaries occurs when gcc 3.1