Re: Binary compatibility break understood ?

[Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>]

"Steven J. Hill" <sjhill@cotw.com> writes:

> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, I finally understand.  Can you send a new patch for glibc with an
> > update for the FAQ?  I'll add it this time.
> > 
> diff -urN glibc-2.2.3/sysdeps/mips/rtld-ldscript.in glibc-2.2.3-patched/sysdeps/
> mips/rtld-ldscript.in
> --- glibc-2.2.3/sysdeps/mips/rtld-ldscript.in   Sat Jul 12 18:23:14 1997
> +++ glibc-2.2.3-patched/sysdeps/mips/rtld-ldscript.in   Sun Apr 29 22:32:35 2001
> @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
> -OUTPUT_FORMAT("@@rtld-oformat@@")
>  OUTPUT_ARCH(@@rtld-arch@@)
>  ENTRY(@@rtld-entry@@)
>  SECTIONS
> 
> 
> There's the patch. It's not much but it is correct. I have built multiple

But it's not complete.  AFAIK remember you posted a patch with some
more changes and HJ even suggested to remove the rtld-ldscript.in file.

> toolchains and such using this patch. GCC out of CVS both the 3.0 and
> cutting edge branch work without patches for Linux. And as mentioned
> earlier, binutils is already fixed. As far as FAQ update...what do you
> want?

I need an update for the FAQ that explains which binutils version is
required for MIPS and I prefer to have a test that checks on
MIPS-Linux for the correct emulation in ld.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj