This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relative dynamic linking
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Edward Peschko <esp5 at pge dot com>
- Cc: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>, alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:16:59 +0100
- Subject: Re: forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relative dynamic linking
- References: <41F5E862.2030906@kegel.com> <20050125195606.GA29787@venus> <41F72F7B.4070500@kegel.com> <20050126211549.GC29787@venus>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:15:49PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:49:47PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> > Edward Peschko wrote:
> > >I build glibc out of the box, ie: no patches on a SuSE machine, same
> > >version as the OS (glibc-2.3.3), using latest gcc(gcc-3.4.3)
> > >get segmentation faults every time when I try to run it against
> > >system binaries.
> >
> > Why are you replacing the system glibc? That's never a good idea.
>
> I'm not replacing the system glibc - all I am doing is making the point
> that *if* you compile glibc and run it against system binaries, the
> system binaries break.
How do you do that?
If you are using ld.so from one glibc build with libc.so from a completely
different one, there is no guarantee that will work. There is a private
interface between them that keeps changing. But glibc as the whole set
ought to be backwards compatible for programs and shared libraries.
Jakub