This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
assert errors in ld.so in GLIBC-2_3-BRANCH
- From: Edward Peschko <esp5 at pge dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: drepper at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:55:25 -0800
- Subject: assert errors in ld.so in GLIBC-2_3-BRANCH
ok,
so I've got things working a little better wrt missing symbols, and using
gcc version 3.4.3. If I config glibc on suse-9.0 with:
../configure --prefix=.... --enable-add-ons=linuxthreads
--without-tls --without-__thread
I get rid of most of the undefined symbols. .
However, two things.
I keep getting this 'Inconsistency error', as in:
CPP='/opt/tools/generic/test/i686/Linux/bin/gcc -E -x c-header' <pathlisting>
-c rpsvc/bootparam_prot.x -o .../sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.T
Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dynamic-link.h: 173: elf_get_dynamic_info:
Assertion 'info[15] == ((void *)0)' failed.
I guess that this build is driving me round and round and round in circles.
I've never gotten a straight answer from newsgroups or other forums.
what does the assertion mean? IE - why would it fail?
I see one entry in this list's history about ld.so being linked with an
RPATH because of gcc's compilation params, but in my case I'm pretty
sure that its statically linked (for the record, here's the dumpspecs for my
gcc:)
gcc -dumpspecs | grep link_libgcc
*link_libgcc:
%{!fsyntax-only:%{!c:%{!M:%{!MM:%{!E:%{!S: %(linker) %l %{pie:} %X %{o*} %{A} %{d} %{e*} %{m} %{N} %{n} %{r} %{s} %{t} %{u*} %{x} %{z} %{Z} %{!A:%{!nostdlib:%{!nostartfiles:%S}}} %{static:} %{L*} %(link_libgcc) %o %{fprofile-arcs|fprofile-generate:-lgcov} %{!nostdlib:%{!nodefaultlibs:%(link_gcc_c_sequence)}} %{!A:%{!nostdlib:%{!nostartfiles:%E}}} %{T*} }}}}}}
Ed
(
ps - sometimes, just *sometimes* I get to the end of the compile, all the
way to libc.so... but even then I fail with:
__fork_block undefined
errors.
This is all happening, btw on the latest GLIBC-2_3-BRANCH tag btw... Ulrich?
has the GLIBC-2_3-BRANCH been compiled from scratch lately on a suse i386
machine?
)
(
pps - if I wanted to fill out a bug report, what info is required as per platform,
compiler, etc.
)