This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: Versioned symbols in elfutils and uClibc
- From: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:41:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: Versioned symbols in elfutils and uClibc
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Anthony G. Basile
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 04/23/15 18:24, Max Filippov wrote:
> >> A lot of tests failed because elfutils were built with --disable-progs
> >> (otherwise the build fails), and some test binaries failed to build
> >> because they call functions not available in uClibc.
> > You might also want to take a look a . I had to produce a series of
> Wow, I didn't know that gentoo can work with uClibc, that's great.
> I'll look at these patches.
If you could work together and see which patches seem reasonable to
submit upstream that would be appreciated. I cannot guarantee they
will all accepted if they make the code really complicated/broken.
And elfutils really is designed to make use of a full featured libc
like glibc. So if at all possible I would really recommend not using
something like uclibc. But we should do a reasonable attempt to make
sure the fork/difference isn't too big.
> > patches to get it to build. What did you do about mtrace()?
> I've plugged it with empty definition.
We don't really use mtrace() consistently, not all tools call it at
the start. Unless someone disagrees I wouldn't mind just removing them.
There are other ways to track memory usage. I run valgrind regularly
on some of the tools to see whether we have any memory leaks. Although
that isn't automated (it probably should). But neither is it automated
for the mtrace() case.