This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ready for 2.3?
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:45:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, if it is only ld.so calls which need to go through PLT, then you
> should change only ld.so calls.
Is this the Roland's "all ld.so 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 ld.so 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)
> 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
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org email@example.com
Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/