Versioning mess proved!!!

[Franz Sirl]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2000, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >Uli, actually I think your patch broke this, WEAK_GMON_START was never
> >defined for PPC, we always had the dummy weak __gmon_start__() routine
> > which Philips patch removed. Can we really change this without breaking
> > binary compatibility?
>
> I thought Geoff said at the time that PPC worked OK without the dummy weak
> definition.  What's the actual issue that breaks it?

Backwards compatibility? Actually I can't do much better in this area, cause 
the innards of the shared library loading are still mostly a mystery to me. 
Maybe it's not possible to have backwards compatibility, maybe the shared lib 
loader has a bug, maybe...? I think Geoff is the one to ask here, or maybe 
somebody can give me some hints on what to look next.

What I know is that libc-2.1.94 + zlib.so-compiled-against-2.1.94 + 
zlib-example-compiled-against-2.1.3 segfaults on PPC.
The segfault happens in call_gmon_start, cause *gmon_start is not zero. It 
seems like *gmon_start got relocated to a "ba 0", that's an absolute branch 
to 0 on PPC, which naturally segfaults.

Well, maybe I should ask the other way round, are there any advantages of the 
current code to the previous one? Does PPC have to change at all?

Franz.