From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
Cc: "SGI Linux Alias" <linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Include coherency problem, sigaction and otherwise
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:57:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <005901bf90d1$269b2690$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> (raw)
>> > > I have the impresson that the /usr/include stuff in the
>> > > "Hard Hat" distribution for MIPS is keyed to a 2.0.x kernel,
>> > > and that an update of /usr/include (as opposed to a downgrade
>> > > of the kernel headers) may be in order.
>> ...
>> > As near as I can tell, at least for glibc-2.1.1-7, there
>> >is not machine-dependent <bits/sigaction.h> for mips, so the
>> >generic one is used, and the definitions are incompatible with the
>> >MIPS ABI. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, is compatible with the
>> >MIPS ABI. The cure is to supply a MIPS-specific <bits/sigaction.h>.
>>
>> It's worse than that - the "Hard Hat" 5.1 distribution that serves
>> as the reference userland for most SGI/MIPS/Linux platforms
>> doesn't even have a /usr/include/bits directory, which seems
>> to have been a more recent invention.
>
>The whole inconsistence was a stupid accident. Since apparently only very
>little software was affected negativly (read: no known problems) we didn't
>try to come up with some genious compatibility hacks but just fixed the
>definitions the hard way.
Having two independent sets of include files between kernel and userland
is always a bad idea, but is not *necessarily* broken, and sometimes
cannot be avoided. The problem is not that the definitions are seperately
wired, but that they are incompatible - the risk one takes when one creates
multiple independent definitions.
> Current glibc snapshots and Linuxkernels
have
>been fixed to use the same definitions. If not, mail me a brown paperbag.
Certainly the hardhat-sgi-5.1-tar.gz archive on oss.sgi.com is out of sync
with any MIPS/Linux kernel sources of which I am aware. The most recent
version of glibc 2.0 for MIPS that I have been able to find is 2.0.7, and it
too seems to be out of synch. Which version of glibc has been fixed,
and where can I download it? Which userland distribution is built with
the consistent glibc?
Regards,
Kevin K.
__
Kevin D. Kissell
MIPS Technologies European Architecture Lab
kevink@mips.com
Tel. +33.4.78.38.70.67
FAX. +33.4.78.38.70.68
next reply other threads:[~2000-03-18 12:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-03-18 11:57 Kevin D. Kissell [this message]
2000-03-18 13:59 ` Include coherency problem, sigaction and otherwise Ralf Baechle
2000-03-18 22:02 ` William J. Earl
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-03-18 19:59 Kevin D. Kissell
2000-03-17 18:28 Kevin D. Kissell
2000-03-18 4:08 ` Ralf Baechle
2000-03-18 4:41 ` William J. Earl
2000-03-18 4:59 ` Ralf Baechle
2000-03-17 16:21 Kevin D. Kissell
2000-03-17 18:02 ` William J. Earl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='005901bf90d1$269b2690$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com' \
--to=kevink@mips.com \
--cc=linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com \
--cc=ralf@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox