On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:48 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 10/25/2011 04:06 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
What is the plan for reconciling the differences?
A few packages stand out as being particularly concerning:
glibc: Both have arm patches, but are they the same patches?
I started looking at 2.14.7.arm0 (v5) vs 220.127.116.11.0.arm1 (v7) this
morning. It is not clear to me if glibc-2.14.7.arm0 does have arm
specific patches. 18.104.22.168.0.arm1 does have:
It looks like glibc-arm-tzdata.patch isn't needed in 2.14.7.
Upstream commit 998832a46688b9fb3a101eccae77bc45e7c1d7ab:
Author: Andreas Schwab <schwab(a)redhat.com>
Date: Fri Nov 4 14:39:05 2011 +0100
Always provide declarations of long double math functions when !_LIBC
appears to fix the problem glibc-arm-mathdefs.patch tries to work
around. It is a simple patch which easily backports to 2.14.7.
The arm-clone-unwind is still needed and applies to 2.14.7.
So, I'm in the process of building the 2.14.7 glibc for armv7hl with
the long double math and unwind patches added.