From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:37:00 +0000 Subject: Re: gcc problems Message-Id: <16424.35356.694196.577887@napali.hpl.hp.com> List-Id: References: <20040206000058.7e928d80.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040206000058.7e928d80.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:30:50 -0800, Andrew Morton said: Andrew> Andreas Schwab wrote: >> The fields were named differently in old versions of glibc, but >> the whole layout didn't change in any way. >> - unsigned long int sc_rsvd[16];/* reserved for future use */ + >> unsigned long int sc_rbs_base;/* NULL or new base of sighandler's >> rbs */ + unsigned long int sc_loadrs; /* see description above */ >> + unsigned long int sc_ar25; /* cmp8xchg16 uses this */ + >> unsigned long int sc_ar26; /* rsvd for scratch use */ + unsigned >> long int sc_rsvd[12];/* reserved for future use */ >> > The easiest workaround is probably to install libunwind on your >> system >> The right fix is not to use a 2 years old glibc. Andrew> That's not very old. One shouldn't have to upgrade libc Andrew> just to build gcc? True in general, but in this particular case, many bugs have been fixed in glibc in the meantime, especially with respect to unwinding. So 2 years is old when trying to build a compiler which has reasonable support for unwinding. --david