Update.

1998-04-21  Ulrich Drepper  <drepper@cygnus.com>

	* ptlongjmp.c: Add prorotypes for __libc_siglongjmp and
	__libc_longjmp.

1 files changed, 361 insertions, 361 deletions

diff --git a/FAQ.in b/FAQ.in
index 0a8277fbe2..b1968bfb46 100644
--- a/FAQ.in
+++ b/FAQ.in
@@ -1,14 +1,13 @@
 	    Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU C Library
 
-This document tries to answer questions a user might have when
-installing and using glibc.  Please make sure you read this before
-sending questions or bug reports to the maintainers.
+This document tries to answer questions a user might have when installing
+and using glibc.  Please make sure you read this before sending questions or
+bug reports to the maintainers.
 
-The GNU C library is very complex.  The installation process has not
-been completely automated; there are too many variables. You can do
-substantial damage to your system by installing the library
-incorrectly.  Make sure you understand what you are undertaking before
-you begin.
+The GNU C library is very complex.  The installation process has not been
+completely automated; there are too many variables. You can do substantial
+damage to your system by installing the library incorrectly.  Make sure you
+understand what you are undertaking before you begin.
 
 If you have any questions you think should be answered in this document,
 please let me know.
@@ -19,12 +18,12 @@ please let me know.
 
 ??	What systems does the GNU C Library run on?
 
-{UD} This is difficult to answer.  The file `README' lists the
-architectures GNU libc was known to run on *at some time*.  This does
-not mean that it still can be compiled and run on them now.
+{UD} This is difficult to answer.  The file `README' lists the architectures
+GNU libc was known to run on *at some time*.  This does not mean that it
+still can be compiled and run on them now.
 
-The systems glibc is known to work on as of this release, and most
-probably in the future, are:
+The systems glibc is known to work on as of this release, and most probably
+in the future, are:
 
 	*-*-gnu			GNU Hurd
 	i[3456]86-*-linux-gnu	Linux-2.x on Intel
@@ -36,68 +35,69 @@ probably in the future, are:
 	arm-*-none		ARM standalone systems
 	arm-*-linuxaout		Linux-2.x on ARM using a.out binaries
 
-Ports to other Linux platforms are in development, and may in fact
-work already, but no one has sent us success reports for them.
-Currently no ports to other operating systems are underway, although a
-few people have expressed interest.
+Ports to other Linux platforms are in development, and may in fact work
+already, but no one has sent us success reports for them.  Currently no
+ports to other operating systems are underway, although a few people have
+expressed interest.
 
-If you have a system not listed above (or in the `README' file) and
-you are really interested in porting it, contact
+If you have a system not listed above (or in the `README' file) and you are
+really interested in porting it, contact
 
 	<bug-glibc@gnu.org>
 
 ??	What compiler do I need to build GNU libc?
 
-{UD} You must use GNU CC to compile GNU libc.  A lot of extensions of
-GNU CC are used to increase portability and speed.
+{UD} You must use GNU CC to compile GNU libc.  A lot of extensions of GNU CC
+are used to increase portability and speed.
 
 GNU CC is found, like all other GNU packages, on
+
 	ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu
+
 and the many mirror sites.  ftp.gnu.org is always overloaded, so try to find
 a local mirror first.
 
-You always should try to use the latest official release.  Older
-versions may not have all the features GNU libc requires.  The current
-releases of egcs (1.0.2) and GNU CC (2.8.1) should work with the GNU C
-library (for powerpc see question ?powerpc).
+You always should try to use the latest official release.  Older versions
+may not have all the features GNU libc requires.  The current releases of
+egcs (1.0.2) and GNU CC (2.8.1) should work with the GNU C library (for
+powerpc see question ?powerpc).
 
 ??	When I try to compile glibc I get only error messages.
 	What's wrong?
 
-{UD} You definitely need GNU make to translate GNU libc.  No
-other make program has the needed functionality.
+{UD} You definitely need GNU make to translate GNU libc.  No other make
+program has the needed functionality.
 
-We recommend version GNU make version 3.75.  Versions 3.76 and 3.76.1
-have bugs which appear when building big projects like GNU libc.
-Versions before 3.74 have bugs and/or are missing features.
+We recommend version GNU make version 3.75.  Versions 3.76 and 3.76.1 have
+bugs which appear when building big projects like GNU libc.  Versions before
+3.74 have bugs and/or are missing features.
 
 ??	Do I need a special linker or archiver?
 
-{UD} You may be able to use your system linker, but GNU libc works
-best with GNU binutils.
+{UD} You may be able to use your system linker, but GNU libc works best with
+GNU binutils.
 
-On systems where the native linker does not support weak symbols you
-will not get a fully ISO C compliant C library.  Generally speaking
-you should use the GNU binutils if they provide at least the same
-functionality as your system's tools.
+On systems where the native linker does not support weak symbols you will
+not get a fully ISO C compliant C library.  Generally speaking you should
+use the GNU binutils if they provide at least the same functionality as your
+system's tools.
 
-Always get the newest release of GNU binutils available.  Older
-releases are known to have bugs that prevent a successful compilation.
+Always get the newest release of GNU binutils available.  Older releases are
+known to have bugs that prevent a successful compilation.
 
-{ZW} As of release 2.1 a linker supporting symbol versions is
-required.  For Linux, get binutils-2.8.1.0.23 or later.  Other systems
-may have native linker support, but it's moot right now, because glibc
-has not been ported to them.
+{ZW} As of release 2.1 a linker supporting symbol versions is required.  For
+Linux, get binutils-2.8.1.0.23 or later.  Other systems may have native
+linker support, but it's moot right now, because glibc has not been ported
+to them.
 
 ??powerpc	Which compiler should I use for powerpc?
 
-{GK} You want to use egcs 1.0.1 or later (together with the right
-versions of all the other tools, of course).
+{GK} You want to use egcs 1.0.1 or later (together with the right versions
+of all the other tools, of course).
 
-In fact, egcs 1.0.1 has a serious bug that prevents a clean make,
-relating to switch statement folding.  It also causes the resulting
-shared libraries to use more memory than they should.  There is a
-patch at:
+In fact, egcs 1.0.1 has a serious bug that prevents a clean make, relating
+to switch statement folding.  It also causes the resulting shared libraries
+to use more memory than they should.  There is a patch at:
 
 <http://discus.anu.edu.au/~geoffk/egcs-1.0.1-geoffk.diff>
 
@@ -149,20 +149,28 @@ Later versions of egcs may fix these problems.
 
 ??	What version of the Linux kernel headers should be used?
 
-{AJ,UD} The headers from the most recent Linux kernel should be used.
-The headers used while compiling the GNU C library and the kernel
-binary used when using the library do not need to match.  The GNU C
-library runs without problems on kernels that are older than the
-kernel headers used.  The other way round (compiling the GNU C library
-with old kernel headers and running on a recent kernel) does not
-necessarily work.  For example you can't use new kernel features when
-using old kernel headers for compiling the GNU C library.
+{AJ,UD} The headers from the most recent Linux kernel should be used.  The
+headers used while compiling the GNU C library and the kernel binary used
+when using the library do not need to match.  The GNU C library runs without
+problems on kernels that are older than the kernel headers used.  The other
+way round (compiling the GNU C library with old kernel headers and running
+on a recent kernel) does not necessarily work.  For example you can't use
+new kernel features when using old kernel headers for compiling the GNU C
+library.
+
+??	The compiler hangs while building iconvdata modules.  What's
+	wrong?
+
+{ZW} This is a problem with all current releases of GCC.  Initialization of
+large static arrays is very slow.  The compiler will eventually finish; give
+it time.
+
+The problem will be fixed in egcs 1.1 but probably not before then.
 
 ??	When I run `nm -u libc.so' on the produced library I still
 	find unresolved symbols.  Can this be ok?
 
-{UD} Yes, this is ok.  There can be several kinds of unresolved
-symbols:
+{UD} Yes, this is ok.  There can be several kinds of unresolved symbols:
 
 * magic symbols automatically generated by the linker.  These have names
   like __start_* and __stop_*
@@ -176,33 +184,32 @@ errors while linking before deciding there is a problem.
 
 ??addon	What are these `add-ons'?
 
-{UD} To avoid complications with export rules or external source
-code some optional parts of the libc are distributed as separate
-packages (e.g., the crypt package, see ?crypt).
+{UD} To avoid complications with export rules or external source code some
+optional parts of the libc are distributed as separate packages (e.g., the
+crypt package, see ?crypt).
 
-To use these packages as part of GNU libc, just unpack the tarfiles in
-the libc source directory and tell the configuration script about them
-using the --enable-add-ons option.  If you give just --enable-add-ons
-configure tries to find all the add-on packages in your source tree.
-This may not work.  If it doesn't, or if you want to select only a
-subset of the add-ons, give a comma-separated list of the add-ons to
-enable:
+To use these packages as part of GNU libc, just unpack the tarfiles in the
+libc source directory and tell the configuration script about them using the
+--enable-add-ons option.  If you give just --enable-add-ons configure tries
+to find all the add-on packages in your source tree.  This may not work.  If
+it doesn't, or if you want to select only a subset of the add-ons, give a
+comma-separated list of the add-ons to enable:
 
 	configure --enable-add-ons=crypt,linuxthreads
 
 for example.
 
-Add-ons can add features (including entirely new shared libraries),
-override files, provide support for additional architectures, and
-just about anything else.  The existing makefiles do most of the work;
-only some few stub rules must be written to get everything running.
+Add-ons can add features (including entirely new shared libraries), override
+files, provide support for additional architectures, and just about anything
+else.  The existing makefiles do most of the work; only some few stub rules
+must be written to get everything running.
 
 ??	My XXX kernel emulates a floating-point coprocessor for me.
 	Should I enable --with-fp?
 
-{ZW} An emulated FPU is just as good as a real one, as far as the C
-library is concerned.  You only need to say --without-fp if your
-machine has no way to execute floating-point instructions.
+{ZW} An emulated FPU is just as good as a real one, as far as the C library
+is concerned.  You only need to say --without-fp if your machine has no way
+to execute floating-point instructions.
 
 People who are interested in squeezing the last drop of performance
 out of their machine may wish to avoid the trap overhead, but this is
@@ -213,107 +220,105 @@ far more trouble than it's worth: you then have to compile
 ??	When compiling GNU libc I get lots of errors saying functions
 	in glibc are duplicated in libgcc.
 
-{EY} This is *exactly* the same problem that I was having.  The
-problem was due to the fact that configure didn't correctly detect
-that the linker flag --no-whole-archive was supported in my linker.
-In my case it was because I had run ./configure with bogus CFLAGS, and
-the test failed.
+{EY} This is *exactly* the same problem that I was having.  The problem was
+due to the fact that configure didn't correctly detect that the linker flag
+--no-whole-archive was supported in my linker.  In my case it was because I
+had run ./configure with bogus CFLAGS, and the test failed.
 
-One thing that is particularly annoying about this problem is that
-once this is misdetected, running configure again won't fix it unless
-you first delete config.cache.
+One thing that is particularly annoying about this problem is that once this
+is misdetected, running configure again won't fix it unless you first delete
+config.cache.
 
-{UD} Starting with glibc-2.0.3 there should be a better test to avoid
-some problems of this kind.  The setting of CFLAGS is checked at the
-very beginning and if it is not usable `configure' will bark.
+{UD} Starting with glibc-2.0.3 there should be a better test to avoid some
+problems of this kind.  The setting of CFLAGS is checked at the very
+beginning and if it is not usable `configure' will bark.
 
 ??	Why do I get messages about missing thread functions when I use
 	librt?  I don't even use threads.
 
 {UD} In this case you probably mixed up your installation.  librt uses
 threads internally and has implicit references to the thread library.
-Normally these references are satisfied automatically but if the
-thread library is not in the expected place you must tell the linker
-where it is.  When using GNU ld it works like this:
+Normally these references are satisfied automatically but if the thread
+library is not in the expected place you must tell the linker where it is.
+When using GNU ld it works like this:
 
 	gcc -o foo foo.c -Wl,-rpath-link=/some/other/dir -lrt
 
-The `/some/other/dir' should contain the thread library.  `ld' will
-use the given path to find the implicitly referenced library while not
-disturbing any other link path.
+The `/some/other/dir' should contain the thread library.  `ld' will use the
+given path to find the implicitly referenced library while not disturbing
+any other link path.
 
 ??	What's the problem with configure --enable-omitfp?
 
 {AJ} When --enable-omitfp is set the libraries are built without frame
-pointers. Some compilers produce buggy code for this model and
-therefore we don't advise using it at the moment.
+pointers. Some compilers produce buggy code for this model and therefore we
+don't advise using it at the moment.
 
-If you use --enable-omitfp, you're on your own. If you encounter
-problems with a library that was build this way, we advise you to
-rebuild the library without --enable-omitfp.  If the problem vanishes
-consider tracking the problem down and report it as compiler failure.
+If you use --enable-omitfp, you're on your own. If you encounter problems
+with a library that was build this way, we advise you to rebuild the library
+without --enable-omitfp.  If the problem vanishes consider tracking the
+problem down and report it as compiler failure.
 
-Since a library build with --enable-omitfp is undebuggable on most
-systems, debuggable libraries are also built - you can use it by
-appending "_g" to the library names.
+Since a library build with --enable-omitfp is undebuggable on most systems,
+debuggable libraries are also built - you can use it by appending "_g" to
+the library names.
 
-The compilation of these extra libraries and the compiler optimizations
-slow down the build process and need more disk space.
+The compilation of these extra libraries and the compiler optimizations slow
+down the build process and need more disk space.
 
 ? Installation and configuration issues
 
 ??	Can I replace the libc on my Linux system with GNU libc?
 
-{UD} You cannot replace any existing libc for Linux with GNU
-libc.  It is binary incompatible and therefore has a different major
-version.  You can, however, install it alongside your existing libc.
+{UD} You cannot replace any existing libc for Linux with GNU libc.  It is
+binary incompatible and therefore has a different major version.  You can,
+however, install it alongside your existing libc.
 
 For Linux there are three major libc versions:
 	libc-4		a.out libc
 	libc-5		original ELF libc
 	libc-6		GNU libc
 
-You can have any combination of these three installed.  For more
-information consult documentation for shared library handling.  The
-Makefiles of GNU libc will automatically generate the needed symbolic
-links which the linker will use.
+You can have any combination of these three installed.  For more information
+consult documentation for shared library handling.  The Makefiles of GNU
+libc will automatically generate the needed symbolic links which the linker
+will use.
 
 ??	How do I configure GNU libc so that the essential libraries
 	like libc.so go into /lib and the other into /usr/lib?
 
 {UD,AJ} Like all other GNU packages GNU libc is designed to use a base
 directory and install all files relative to this.  The default is
-/usr/local, because this is safe (it will not damage the system if
-installed there).  If you wish to install GNU libc as the primary C
-library on your system, set the base directory to /usr (i.e. run
-configure --prefix=/usr <other_options>).  Note that this can damage
-your system; see ?safety for details.
-
-Some systems like Linux have a filesystem standard which makes a
-difference between essential libraries and others.  Essential
-libraries are placed in /lib because this directory is required to be
-located on the same disk partition as /.  The /usr subtree might be
-found on another partition/disk. If you configure for Linux with
---prefix=/usr, then this will be done automatically.
+/usr/local, because this is safe (it will not damage the system if installed
+there).  If you wish to install GNU libc as the primary C library on your
+system, set the base directory to /usr (i.e. run configure --prefix=/usr
+<other_options>).  Note that this can damage your system; see ?safety for
+details.
+
+Some systems like Linux have a filesystem standard which makes a difference
+between essential libraries and others.  Essential libraries are placed in
+/lib because this directory is required to be located on the same disk
+partition as /.  The /usr subtree might be found on another
+partition/disk. If you configure for Linux with --prefix=/usr, then this
+will be done automatically.
 
 To install the essential libraries which come with GNU libc in /lib on
-systems other than Linux one must explicitly request it.  Autoconf has
-no option for this so you have to use a `configparms' file (see the
-`INSTALL' file for details).  It should contain:
+systems other than Linux one must explicitly request it.  Autoconf has no
+option for this so you have to use a `configparms' file (see the `INSTALL'
+file for details).  It should contain:
 
 slibdir=/lib
 sysconfdir=/etc
 
-The first line specifies the directory for the essential libraries,
-the second line the directory for system configuration files.
+The first line specifies the directory for the essential libraries, the
+second line the directory for system configuration files.
 
 ??safety	How should I avoid damaging my system when I install GNU libc?
 
-{ZW} If you wish to be cautious, do not configure with --prefix=/usr.
-If you don't specify a prefix, glibc will be installed in /usr/local,
-where it will probably not break anything.  (If you wish to be
-certain, set the prefix to something like /usr/local/glibc2 which is
-not used for anything.)
+{ZW} If you wish to be cautious, do not configure with --prefix=/usr.  If
+you don't specify a prefix, glibc will be installed in /usr/local, where it
+will probably not break anything.  (If you wish to be certain, set the
+prefix to something like /usr/local/glibc2 which is not used for anything.)
 
 The dangers when installing glibc in /usr are twofold:
 
@@ -336,54 +341,52 @@ long-time Linux users will remember.
 ??	Do I need to use GNU CC to compile programs that will use the
 	GNU C Library?
 
-{ZW} In theory, no; the linker does not care, and the headers are
-supposed to check for GNU CC before using its extensions to the C
-language.
+{ZW} In theory, no; the linker does not care, and the headers are supposed
+to check for GNU CC before using its extensions to the C language.
 
-However, there are currently no ports of glibc to systems where
-another compiler is the default, so no one has tested the headers
-extensively against another compiler.  You may therefore encounter
-difficulties.  If you do, please report them as bugs.
+However, there are currently no ports of glibc to systems where another
+compiler is the default, so no one has tested the headers extensively
+against another compiler.  You may therefore encounter difficulties.  If you
+do, please report them as bugs.
 
 Also, in several places GNU extensions provide large benefits in code
 quality.  For example, the library has hand-optimized, inline assembly
-versions of some string functions.  These can only be used with GCC.
-See ?string for details.
+versions of some string functions.  These can only be used with GCC.  See
+?string for details.
 
 ??crypt	When linking with the new libc I get unresolved symbols
 	`crypt' and `setkey'.  Why aren't these functions in the
 	libc anymore?
 
-{UD} The US places restrictions on exporting cryptographic programs
-and source code.  Until this law gets abolished we cannot ship the
-cryptographic functions together with glibc.
+{UD} The US places restrictions on exporting cryptographic programs and
+source code.  Until this law gets abolished we cannot ship the cryptographic
+functions together with glibc.
 
-The functions are available, as an add-on (see ?addon).  People in the
-US may get it from the same place they got GNU libc from.  People
-outside the US should get the code from ftp://ftp.ifi.uio.no/pub/gnu,
-or another archive site outside the USA.  The README explains how to
-install the sources.
+The functions are available, as an add-on (see ?addon).  People in the US
+may get it from the same place they got GNU libc from.  People outside the
+US should get the code from ftp://ftp.ifi.uio.no/pub/gnu, or another archive
+site outside the USA.  The README explains how to install the sources.
 
-If you already have the crypt code on your system the reason for the
-failure is probably that you did not link with -lcrypt.  The crypto
-functions are in a separate library to make it possible to export GNU
-libc binaries from the US.
+If you already have the crypt code on your system the reason for the failure
+is probably that you did not link with -lcrypt.  The crypto functions are in
+a separate library to make it possible to export GNU libc binaries from the
+US.
 
 ??	When I use GNU libc on my Linux system by linking against
 	the libc.so which comes with glibc all I get is a core dump.
 
-{UD} On Linux, gcc sets the dynamic linker to /lib/ld-linux.so.1
-unless the user specifies a -dynamic-linker argument.  This is the
-name of the libc5 dynamic linker, which does not work with glibc.
+{UD} On Linux, gcc sets the dynamic linker to /lib/ld-linux.so.1 unless the
+user specifies a -dynamic-linker argument.  This is the name of the libc5
+dynamic linker, which does not work with glibc.
 
 For casual use of GNU libc you can just specify
     -dynamic-linker=/lib/ld-linux.so.2
 
-which is the glibc dynamic linker, on Linux systems.  On other systems
-the name is /lib/ld.so.1.
+which is the glibc dynamic linker, on Linux systems.  On other systems the
+name is /lib/ld.so.1.
 
-To change your environment to use GNU libc for compiling you need to
-change the `specs' file of your gcc.  This file is normally found at
+To change your environment to use GNU libc for compiling you need to change
+the `specs' file of your gcc.  This file is normally found at
 
 	/usr/lib/gcc-lib/<arch>/<version>/specs
 
@@ -395,8 +398,8 @@ In this file you have to change a few things:
 
 - fix a minor bug by changing %{pipe:-} to %|
 
-Here is what the gcc-2.7.2 specs file should look like when GNU libc
-is installed at /usr:
+Here is what the gcc-2.7.2 specs file should look like when GNU libc is
+installed at /usr:
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 *asm:
@@ -446,11 +449,11 @@ is installed at /usr:
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-Things get a bit more complicated if you have GNU libc installed in
-some other place than /usr, i.e., if you do not want to use it instead
-of the old libc.  In this case the needed startup files and libraries
-are not found in the regular places.  So the specs file must tell the
-compiler and linker exactly what to use.
+Things get a bit more complicated if you have GNU libc installed in some
+other place than /usr, i.e., if you do not want to use it instead of the old
+libc.  In this case the needed startup files and libraries are not found in
+the regular places.  So the specs file must tell the compiler and linker
+exactly what to use.
 
 Version 2.7.2.3 does and future versions of GCC will automatically
 provide the correct specs.
@@ -460,36 +463,35 @@ provide the correct specs.
 	linking on my Linux system I get error messages.  How is
 	this supposed to work?
 
-{RM} Believe it or not, stat and lstat (and fstat, and mknod)
-are supposed to be undefined references in libc.so.6!  Your problem is
-probably a missing or incorrect /usr/lib/libc.so file; note that this
-is a small text file now, not a symlink to libc.so.6.  It should look
-something like this:
+{RM} Believe it or not, stat and lstat (and fstat, and mknod) are supposed
+to be undefined references in libc.so.6!  Your problem is probably a missing
+or incorrect /usr/lib/libc.so file; note that this is a small text file now,
+not a symlink to libc.so.6.  It should look something like this:
 
 GROUP ( libc.so.6 libc_nonshared.a )
 
 ??	How can I compile gcc 2.7.2.1 from the gcc source code using
 	glibc 2.x?
 
-{AJ} There's only correct support for glibc 2.0.x in gcc 2.7.2.3 or
-later.  But you should get at least gcc 2.8.1 or egcs 1.0.2 (or later
-versions) instead.
+{AJ} There's only correct support for glibc 2.0.x in gcc 2.7.2.3 or later.
+But you should get at least gcc 2.8.1 or egcs 1.0.2 (or later versions)
+instead.
 
 ??	The `gencat' utility cannot process the catalog sources which
 	were used on my Linux libc5 based system.  Why?
 
-{UD} The `gencat' utility provided with glibc complies to the XPG
-standard.  The older Linux version did not obey the standard, so they
-are not compatible.
+{UD} The `gencat' utility provided with glibc complies to the XPG standard.
+The older Linux version did not obey the standard, so they are not
+compatible.
 
 To ease the transition from the Linux version some of the non-standard
-features are also present in the `gencat' program of GNU libc.  This
-mainly includes the use of symbols for the message number and the automatic
+features are also present in the `gencat' program of GNU libc.  This mainly
+includes the use of symbols for the message nu