Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:58:14 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: __sF Message-ID: <20021102235814.GB30122@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20021102183431.V35807-100000@sasami.jurai.net> References: <20021102233215.GA30122@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20021102183431.V35807-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:36:31PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:15:09PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > > > This isn't the case for one piece of vendor software that I'm not allowed > > > to talk about. > > > > See the new WANT_COMPAT4_STDIO make.conf knob. > > This won't be acceptable as the vender will likely not be producing a > separate 5.0 build (ie the same build needs to run on both.) until 4.x is > EOLed. Forcing people to rebuild libc seems a high barrier to entry. > Maybe I misunderstand you. But, a person running FreeBSD 5.x, who wants to runs this vendor's 4.x software, will need to build their libc with WANT_COMPAT4_STDIO defined if this product needs to see __sF. This is my exact problem. I have NAG's Fortran 95 compiler, which was built for FreeBSD 4.2. I ran it on 5.0 without a problem until __sF was made static. NAG may never release a 5.x version of their compiler because it may not be cost effective. This is a compromise to move forward with the elimination of the visibility of __sF. -- Steve 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?20021102235814.GB30122>