This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Stripping libc on Alpha


"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:44:22PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:21:56PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > > > the Debian glibc build scripts currently disable stripping glibc on
> > > > Alpha explicitely. However, building glibc 2.3 with gcc 3.2 gives a
> > > > 25M unstripped libc (which strips to 1.4M), so I wonder if this is
> > > > really required. Does anybody know the reason why libc shouldn't be
> > > > stripped? Is this still the case with glibc 2.3?
> > > 
> > > I think it may have something to do with binutils bug. Let me know if
> > > stripping glibc doesn't work on alpha. But you have to use binutils
> > > 2.13.90.0.10 or above.
> > 
> > Hm, Debian currently uses binutils 2.13.90.0.4. I've tried stripping
> > libc.so, and it appears to be working fine. What problems would be to
> > be expected?
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-09/msg00420.html

The non-stripping dates back way longer than this, and the testcase
there segfaults also with an unstripped libc... So unless somebody
objects, I'll reactivate the stripping for Debian glibc.

-- 
	Falk


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]