undefined

points

[-]

I haven’t heard of this and I don’t think you’re right. Glibc, for all its faults, as a general rule does backward compatibility well. The problem is if you compile against a newer glibc (common in CI by default) and try to run on a distro with an older (common in the wild). If your CI uses an older glibc you should be fine AFAIK.

by pg8311 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638477 is the most "famous" example.

There are also much less well-known "little things" that regularly pop up here and there.

> If your CI uses an older glibc you should be fine AFAIK.

In any case, my binaries work not only under glibc, but also under Alpine, and (work in progress) under android/bionic.

by vlovich12310 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Not sure what you’re trying to show with that bug report but it’s not a case of cross distro glibc issues. If I read correctly it’s a vanilla behavioral change that exposed preexisting UB in flash.

Not sure how the comments about alpine or bionic relate either to my claim that cross distro glibc is fine.

by pg839 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It depends on how we define the ABI. I see it as a set of client-visible invariants that they rely on. In my world, glibc changed the client's visible invariants, breaking the client. The client works on one glibc-based host, but not on another. What is this if not "a case of cross-distro glibc issues?"

Overall, both of our points of view on compatibility were discussed well in that thread; we probably shouldn't repeat ourselves. :)

by account424 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

ABI is not "whatever happens to work with this distro" but "what programs that comply with the API contract compile to". Overlapping memcpy arguments is an API contract violation and thus not something covered by the ABI either. This distinction is the entire reason why C has a separate memmove function. You can't just make up your own imaginary ABI contract and then blame the system when it doesn't fulfill it. That's going to result in self-inflicted plain on any OS.

by pg834 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's so good that Linus thinks differently!

by ninkendo1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> It depends on how we define the ABI. I see it as a set of client-visible invariants that they rely on

By that definition, any change of any kind will break ABI, Hyrum’s law and spacebar heating and all that.

by __turbobrew__8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Quite frankly, I find your attitude to be annoying and downright stupid.

- Linus Torvalds

That bug report was a good read.

by jezek24 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

This is not true. Glibc supports symbol versioning. You can use it to select old versions of used symbols. The result is a binary that can work on 20 year old distros the same as on the latest, compiled with latest compiler and Glibc.

You can also compile using old distro and old Glibc to get similar effect. Though you would miss the advances of the newer compilers.

by pg834 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49358538

by diabllicseagull11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

according to appimage recommendations as long as you build against glibc with an earlier version than the system it's run on it should be fine.

https://docs.appimage.org/reference/best-practices.html

I hear you about WINE though.

by 9 hours ago|