This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

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

Re: lockf64 and GLIBC_2.1/GLIBC_2.1.1

To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>
Subject: Re: lockf64 and GLIBC_2.1/GLIBC_2.1.1
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
Date: 09 Nov 2000 19:31:57 -0800
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
References: <20001109191818.A7537@valinux.com>
Reply-To: drepper at cygnus dot com (Ulrich Drepper)

"H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> writes:

> Why does lockf64 have both GLIBC_2.1 and GLIBC_2.1.1? In fact, only
> GLIBC_2.1 is really defined. I guess GLIBC_2.1 was mistake. But it
> is too late to change now. Here is a patch. 

That's correct.  But this is no problem, the binaries are created
correctly.  What isn't correct is probably that it was added to 2.1 in
the first place and the consequence is that a binary linked against
2.1 might silently crash.  But this cannot be changed anymore and
apparently was no real problem.  Thanks.

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------

Follow-Ups:
- More problems like (Re: lockf64 and GLIBC_2.1/GLIBC_2.1.1)
  - From: H . J . Lu

References:
- lockf64 and GLIBC_2.1/GLIBC_2.1.1
  - From: H . J . Lu

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