This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PATCH: A symbol version bug
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>,libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 22:11:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: A symbol version bug
- References: <200305150325.XAA87444@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <200305150439.AAA91337@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:39:44AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Ugh. No wonder this is failing. The glibc cvs with the patch...
> ...is failing vismain.out...
> `.protected' seems to be handled correctly, good!
> &protinmod in main (0x10012aa4) != &protinmod in mod1 (0xffbcb34)
> &protitcpt in main (0x10012a64) != &protitcpt in mod3 (0xffdf944)
> &protvarinmod in main (0x100129b0) != &protitcpt in mod1 (0xffcd020)
> &protvaritcpt in main (0x100129b4) != &protvaritcpt in mod3 (0xffefd70)
> One thing...I built binutils 184.108.40.206.1 with the proposed bfd-base
> ...and since it passed make check I installed it and used it to build
> the glibc cvs plus the base patch. I'll revert to my previous
> binutils 220.127.116.11.1 without the base patch and rebuild glibc cvs
> with the base patch to make sure glibc cvs is okay.
I have no problem on Linux/x86.