Subject: Patches for glibc-2.1.2pre2?

From: [email-masked] (John Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:41:22 -0700

I'm trying to cross compile some applications for Arm Linux from
an Intel Linux machine.  I naively grabbed glibc-2.1.2pre2 from the
sourceware.cygnus.com site (I haven't seen any information that says
this would/wouldn't work, so I thought I'd try the latest version.)

I'm running into a problem with ld-linux.so.2 complaining about
ELF OS ABI value mismatches.  Digging around a bit, I found some
Usenet postings containing a patch from Philip Blundel for this
problem.  This patch was supposed to be applied to glibc-2.1.1.

Is this a known problem w/ glibc-2.1.1 and later?  Has the patch
made it into 2.1.2 and later revs of the official source?  Is 
there a place which stores Arm Linux patches to glibc that I 
might have found this at?  Should I forget about glibc-2.1.2 and
and stick with an earlier version?

[ Despite this problems, I have been able to get cross-compiled
  apps to work, so it seems that the set of tools I'm using
  {glibc-2.1.2, gcc-2.95/bin, binutils-2.9.5.0.4} isn't too broken. ]

Regards,
John.
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [email-masked]

---

From: Philip Blundell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 22:12:43 +0100

>made it into 2.1.2 and later revs of the official source?  

This is the one issue that makes me reluctant to tell everyone to throw away 
binutils 2.9.1 and use 2.9.5 instead.  Basically, owing to a series of fairly 
uninteresting slip-ups, we have ended up in a situation where binutils 
2.9.5 is not 100% compatible with the older versions.  Normal programs 
shouldn't care but gcc and glibc need to know the difference.

I hope it will be fixed in glibc before 2.1.2 is actually released, though I 
can't make any promise.

As a side note, I am about to change the mainline egcs sources so that a 
target name of `arm-*-linux-gnu' implies binutils 2.9.5, and a target name of 
`arm-*-linux-gnuoldld' implies an older version.  Config.guess can tell the 
difference so there should be no reason for concern unless you set target 
names by hand.  This will probably end up being backported to my 2.9.5 
patchset sooner or later.

>Is there a place which stores Arm Linux patches to glibc that I 
>might have found this at?

No.

>Should I forget about glibc-2.1.2 and and stick with an earlier version?

That won't help; glibc has always behaved this way.  Until now it was the 
right thing to do.

p.