Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[Roland McGrath]

You know better than I what existing mips libc.so.6 ABIs have for the size
of sys_errlist.  But for the current version, 123 omits many of the errno
values I see in asm-mips/errno.h, and EDQUOT really is 1133.  So I don't
see how your change can be right.

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[H. J. Lu]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:36:58PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> You know better than I what existing mips libc.so.6 ABIs have for the size
> of sys_errlist.  But for the current version, 123 omits many of the errno
> values I see in asm-mips/errno.h, and EDQUOT really is 1133.  So I don't
> see how your change can be right.

That is what was in glibc 2.0 for mips. However, glibc 2.2 is the first
glibc version I worked on. I don't have any mips binaries compiled
against glibc 2.0. As far as I know, none of glibc prior to the one
with all my mips patches applied ever worked 100% correct on mips.


H.J.

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:41:32PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:36:58PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > You know better than I what existing mips libc.so.6 ABIs have for the size
> > of sys_errlist.  But for the current version, 123 omits many of the errno
> > values I see in asm-mips/errno.h, and EDQUOT really is 1133.  So I don't
> > see how your change can be right.
> 
> That is what was in glibc 2.0 for mips. However, glibc 2.2 is the first
> glibc version I worked on. I don't have any mips binaries compiled
> against glibc 2.0. As far as I know, none of glibc prior to the one
> with all my mips patches applied ever worked 100% correct on mips.

Not everyone uses your MIPS patches; I have a completely functional
MIPS system with:
0019df30 l     O .data  000011b8              _new_sys_errlist
0019df30 l     O .data  000001ec              _old_sys_errlist

(That's 1134*4 in the new one and 123*4 in the older one).  There's a
lot of these beasts deployed and I'd hate to see an incompatible change
now!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[H. J. Lu]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 12:45:49AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Not everyone uses your MIPS patches; I have a completely functional
> MIPS system with:
> 0019df30 l     O .data  000011b8              _new_sys_errlist
> 0019df30 l     O .data  000001ec              _old_sys_errlist

It doesn't tell anything. Please, please show size of sys_errlist in
glibc 2.0 for mips. I am not even sure if you can run mips binaries
compiled against glibc 2.0 with glibc 2.2/2.3.


H.J.

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:55:43PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 12:45:49AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Not everyone uses your MIPS patches; I have a completely functional
> > MIPS system with:
> > 0019df30 l     O .data  000011b8              _new_sys_errlist
> > 0019df30 l     O .data  000001ec              _old_sys_errlist
> 
> It doesn't tell anything. Please, please show size of sys_errlist in
> glibc 2.0 for mips. I am not even sure if you can run mips binaries
> compiled against glibc 2.0 with glibc 2.2/2.3.

I didn't use 2.0 for MIPS either.  And I got the wrong impression from
your last message; sorry!

Here's what my MIPS glibc has:
0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  sys_errlist
0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   sys_errlist
0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  _sys_errlist
0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   _sys_errlist

So: I don't know where the GLIBC_2.1 version came from, or why we need
a GLIBC_2.3 version, or why we should change the size of the GLIBC_2.0
version.  Your patch looks good; should you wipe the GLIBC_2.1 version
also?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[H. J. Lu]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:14:31PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:55:43PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 12:45:49AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Not everyone uses your MIPS patches; I have a completely functional
> > > MIPS system with:
> > > 0019df30 l     O .data  000011b8              _new_sys_errlist
> > > 0019df30 l     O .data  000001ec              _old_sys_errlist
> > 
> > It doesn't tell anything. Please, please show size of sys_errlist in
> > glibc 2.0 for mips. I am not even sure if you can run mips binaries
> > compiled against glibc 2.0 with glibc 2.2/2.3.
> 
> I didn't use 2.0 for MIPS either.  And I got the wrong impression from
> your last message; sorry!
> 
> Here's what my MIPS glibc has:
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  sys_errlist
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   sys_errlist
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  _sys_errlist
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   _sys_errlist
> 
> So: I don't know where the GLIBC_2.1 version came from, or why we need
> a GLIBC_2.3 version, or why we should change the size of the GLIBC_2.0
> version.  Your patch looks good; should you wipe the GLIBC_2.1 version
> also?

sys_errlist in glibc 2.0 is naked. We gave it a version of GLIBC_2.0
when versioning was implemented and we had to increase the size of
sys_errlist. We gave it a new version, GLIBC_2.1. Now sys_errlist is
changed again for some arches. That is where GLIBC_2.3 came from. For
mips, the first supported glibc version after 2.0 is 2.2. That turns
GLIBC_2.1 into GLIBC_2.2 for mips. Since mips's sys_errlist is huge in 
2.2, there is no need to change it in 2.3.



H.J.

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[Roland McGrath]

> Here's what my MIPS glibc has:
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  sys_errlist
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   sys_errlist
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  _sys_errlist
> 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   _sys_errlist

Ok, that says sys_nerr=123 in 2.0 and sys_nerr=1134 in 2.2.
I have changed the map to have just those.


Thanks,
Roland

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[H. J. Lu]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:53:17PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Here's what my MIPS glibc has:
> > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  sys_errlist
> > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   sys_errlist
> > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  _sys_errlist
> > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   _sys_errlist
> 
> Ok, that says sys_nerr=123 in 2.0 and sys_nerr=1134 in 2.2.
> I have changed the map to have just those.

Please keep in mind that the next version is GLIBC_2.1, not
GLIBC_2.2. The reason you see GLIBC_2.2 is GLIBC_2.2 is the
first versioned ABI for MIPS.


H.J.

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[Roland McGrath]

> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:53:17PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > Here's what my MIPS glibc has:
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  sys_errlist
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   sys_errlist
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  _sys_errlist
> > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   _sys_errlist
> > 
> > Ok, that says sys_nerr=123 in 2.0 and sys_nerr=1134 in 2.2.
> > I have changed the map to have just those.
> 
> Please keep in mind that the next version is GLIBC_2.1, not
> GLIBC_2.2. The reason you see GLIBC_2.2 is GLIBC_2.2 is the
> first versioned ABI for MIPS.

I don't think it's meaningful to make the distinction.  If we wrote
GLIBC_2.1, shlib-versions causes it to be GLIBC_2.2, but that's more
confusing.  Now it says GLIBC_2.2, and that's what you get.  There was
never a "sys_errlist@GLIBC_2.1" symbol in any binary, so it doesn't make
sense to have that version set.  

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[H. J. Lu]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 07:44:46PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:53:17PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > > Here's what my MIPS glibc has:
> > > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  sys_errlist
> > > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   sys_errlist
> > > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000001ec (GLIBC_2.0)  _sys_errlist
> > > > 0019df30 g    DO .data  000011b8  GLIBC_2.2   _sys_errlist
> > > 
> > > Ok, that says sys_nerr=123 in 2.0 and sys_nerr=1134 in 2.2.
> > > I have changed the map to have just those.
> > 
> > Please keep in mind that the next version is GLIBC_2.1, not
> > GLIBC_2.2. The reason you see GLIBC_2.2 is GLIBC_2.2 is the
> > first versioned ABI for MIPS.
> 
> I don't think it's meaningful to make the distinction.  If we wrote
> GLIBC_2.1, shlib-versions causes it to be GLIBC_2.2, but that's more
> confusing.  Now it says GLIBC_2.2, and that's what you get.  There was
> never a "sys_errlist@GLIBC_2.1" symbol in any binary, so it doesn't make
> sense to have that version set.  

But you will only see sys_errlist in GLIBC_2.1 in Versions in glibc
2.2.


H.J.

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[Roland McGrath]

> But you will only see sys_errlist in GLIBC_2.1 in Versions in glibc 2.2.

That is indeed a bit confusing as well.  But what really matters is what
binaries historically contained, and that the current source code produces
that result.

Re: PATCH: Fix errlist for mips

[H. J. Lu]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:05:57PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > But you will only see sys_errlist in GLIBC_2.1 in Versions in glibc 2.2.
> 
> That is indeed a bit confusing as well.  But what really matters is what
> binaries historically contained, and that the current source code produces
> that result.
> 

errlist is not the only one. Most of GLIBC_2.2 for mips come from
GLIBC_2.1.


H.J.