A little horror story on toolchain requirements
Denis Vlasenko
vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua
Thu Oct 10 02:49:00 GMT 2002
On 10 October 2002 07:31, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> writes:
> |> 2.3:
> |> # ldd -r -v /bin/login
> |> libpam.so => /lib/libpam.so (0x40020000)
> |> libpam_misc.so => /lib/libpam_misc.so (0x4002c000)
> |> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4002f000)
> |> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
>
> Make sure that /lib/ld-linux.so.2 and /lib/libc.so.6 match strictly.
They do.
I think I found it.
Let's take a look at elf/Versions:
2.2.5:
libc {
GLIBC_2.0 {
# functions used in other libraries
_dl_open; _dl_close; _dl_addr;
...
2.3:
...
GLIBC_PRIVATE {
# functions used in other libraries
_dl_open; _dl_close; _dl_addr;
_dl_sym; _dl_vsym;
}
}
I will test reverting to 2.2 elf/Versions at home.
I know zero about this issue, but it looks like either
2.3 is wrong or some proggies illegally used internal
symbols and it worked by accident in 2.2.5...
--
vda
More information about the Binutils
mailing list