This is the mail archive of the 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: ready for 2.3?

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:45:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, if it is only calls which need to go through PLT, then you
> should change only calls.

Is this the Roland's "all objects were built with IS_IN_rtld" patch
you are talking about below?

> And as Ulrich pointed out, you have to do it for Hurd only, there is
> no reason why Linux should be bitten because of that.

Sure, I am cool with that.  It is just that I was first aiming at something
that would make the system work again.  How to organize it in glibc then is not
something I can second guess from where I stand.

> Basically (if Roland puts in his "all objects were built
> with IS_IN_rtld" patch), you should keep all the libc_hidden_proto's and
> libc_hidden_def's, but conditionally for Hurd get rid of the problematic
> rtld_hidden_proto/rtld_hidden_def. Some prototypes use
> #if !defined NOT_IN_libc || defined IS_IN_rtld
> hidden_proto (foo)
> hidden_proto (bar)
> #endif
> In that case for Hurd you need to limit it to !define NOT_IN_libc.

Well, I am almost done with a patch ala Drepper (LD_SO_NEEDS_LIBC_SYMBOLS),
which I am testing right now (compiling takes about 6 hours here).  I have
learned about the libc_hidden_* and hidden_* stuff in the last week, but
don't know about rtld_hidden_*, so I would need more time (and Roland's
patch first) before I could submit such a patch.  Is Roland's patch
available somewhere?


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd

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