https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33209
--- Comment #5 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #2) > > Yes, Andreas Huettel and I were just discussing commit > > 9167304255940e29423517f63d11bdd968d7685e (he found it right away). > > > > This is not at all what I was expect was going to happen, so much so that I > > didn't think to just look for explicitly like this. > > > > Adding a dependency on a fixed GLIBC_2.36 to capture a dependency on the fix > > provided by f8587a61892cbafd98ce599131bf4f103466f084 is both difficult to > > backport and causes odd dependency issues. > > > > I think a clearer solution would have been to add another glibc version > > entry for tracking feature e.g. GLIBC_ABI_X86_64_PLT to mark the point at > > which the feature became usable. > > It isn't too late to do that. Please open a binutils bug if it is desirable. Filed https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33212 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
