From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 1 11:14:15 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720F437B4CF; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13]) by wall.polstra.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29313; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:14:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp@wall.polstra.com) Received: (from jdp@localhost) by vashon.polstra.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eA1JE7c07768; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:14:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:14:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200011011914.eA1JE7c07768@vashon.polstra.com> To: current@freebsd.org From: John Polstra Cc: sobomax@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ABI is broken?? In-Reply-To: <3A006A58.E8315ABA@FreeBSD.org> References: <3A005026.47B9978C@FreeBSD.org> <200011011835.eA1IZl207585@vashon.polstra.com> <3A006A58.E8315ABA@FreeBSD.org> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <3A006A58.E8315ABA@FreeBSD.org>, Maxim Sobolev 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. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message