------- Comment #6 from sega01 at go-beyond dot org 2009-04-23 20:59 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> GCC 4.4.0 compiled glibc 2.10 works just fine for me on x86_64, i586, i686,
> powerpc and powerpc64.
>
> Anyway, if you say GCC 4.3.3 compiled glibc 2.8 works and 4.4.0 compiled
> doesn't, then please do a binary search between 4.3.3 and 4.4.0 compiled
> objects to find out on which CU it matters (say configure glibc with CC=gcc
> CXX=g++,
> then point PATH env var. to wher eyou have gcc 4.4.0 unpacked, build glibc,
> verify your testcase breaks, then in the build tree
> for i in [a-l]*/*.os; do mv ${i}{,.4.4}; done
> change PATH to point to 4.3.3 gcc, make, see whether your testcase breaks or
> not and depending on that continue with either half of the [a-l]* or [m-z]*
> objects, etc.
>
Thank you for your reply. First few times reading it I didn't notice the first
sentence. I built a static gdb to test with, but also wanted to try glibc 2.9
on GCC 4.4.0. glibc 2.9 was actually smaller than 2.8 compiled with 4.3.3, not
to mention it worked perfectly; so I'm quite happy. I've moved over completely
to GCC 4.4.0 and glibc 2.9 now, and think that this is quite possibly a glibc
2.8 bug. Not sure if this is worth looking into further now, CC'ing a glibc
developer, or what. Sorry about not trying another glibc version earlier,
although it is possible this is still a GCC bug.
Not sure if the status should be changed on bug report, although uncomfirmed
seems about right to me.
Thanks,
Teran
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39852
