On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 09:49 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 08:39:37AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> Posted below the differences from powerpc64-linux-gnu. A surprising > >> number of additional symbols, but none are missing in the new baseline. > >> (Perhaps powerpc64-linux-gnu needs updating?) > > > > Sure, it needs updating. > > > > So, if I filter the GLIBCXX_3.4.21 and CXXABI_1.3.9 symbols from your diff, > > I get > > grep -v '@@GLIBCXX_3.4.21\|@@CXXABI_1.3.9' /tmp/XX | grep @ > >> TLS:8:_ZSt11__once_call@@GLIBCXX_3.4.11 > >> TLS:8:_ZSt15__once_callable@@GLIBCXX_3.4.11 > > > > which are the two lines you should manually remove. > > But then, it means the powerpc64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linux-gnu > > baseline_symbols.txt are identical, so the question is if we really need > > to duplicate it, instead of just telling in the configury that for > > powerpc64le-linux-gnu it should use the powerpc64-linux-gnu > > baseline_symbols.txt. > > I thought that they are using the same baseline_symbols.txt at the > moment and Bill's patch explicitly separates them in configure. If > the files are identical, then no need to separate them and no need for > the patch. If/when they diverge for a good reason (IEEE long > double?), we can revisit the patch.
I agree, at the moment it appears they are sharing the same baseline_symbols.txt. If there's no reason to split them, then let's forget all about it for now until a good reason comes along. Thanks for helping me work through this. Bill > > Thanks, David >
