Home Original page

[2.45 PATCH 0/3] Backport GLIBC_ABI version dependencies

Sam James sam@gentoo.org
Sun Oct 5 00:10:36 GMT 2025 
Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> writes:

> Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>>
>>>>> Richard would like to make GCC configure fatal by default unless users
>>>>> have safe glibc or explicitly ask for it:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/CAFiYyc2P5ioY=w2wuHZoa275yLsEKBnnQbGgpkDDys=7x718kA@mail.gmail.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch set backports GLIBC_ABI version dependencies to 2.45 so that we
>>>>> can tell users to use it.
>>>>
>>>> Nick, for some more context:
>>>>
>>>> I'll note that we've backported the relevant symbols to appropriate
>>>> glibc branches (quite far back) based on discussion there, but we need
>>>> the GLIBC_ABI_GNU2_TLS dependency to be added by bfd for this to be useful.
>>>>
>>>> Coordinating changes across the GNU toolchain isn't easy. But it is a
>>>> strength that we can do these things when necessary. My hope is we
>>>> can have these backports (even if extraordinary) and possibly have a
>>>> 2.45.1 release for:
>>>> a) this, and
>>>> b) the strip fixes (already on the branch), and
>>>> c) the windres fix (already on the branch).
>>>>
>>>> I've been using these for a while and not had any issues.
>>>>
>>>> I will also note:
>>>> * the GLIBC_ABI_DT_X86_64_PLT change here fixes some confusion that hit
>>>>    distributors of glibc (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33212#c0)
>>>>    becausee we were previously abusing GLIBC_2.36 for that;
>>>>
>>>> * the GLIBC_ABI_GNU_TLS (not the GLIBC_ABI_GNU2_TLS one) change is
>>>>    needed to know if binaries are safe even without any default changes
>>>>    in GCC for i386 if TLS is used.
>>> Gentle ping when you get a chance, Nick. Cheers!
>>
>> Thanks for the gentle prod, and sorry for missing this thread before.
>>
>> So I am totally OK with creating a 2.45.1 release.  It is something that
>> should only take me a weekend to complete.
>
> Thank you!
>
>>
>> Is everything ready on the 2.45 branch now ?  Or should I wait until you
>> give me the OK ?
>
> Please wait until I give the OK, I'll check in this series and then
> double check we're not missing anything else.

Branch should be good now.

>
>>
>> Cheers
>>   Nick
>
> thanks,
> sam
More information about the Binutils mailing list