Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:58:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH: libc]Re: gnome on current Message-ID: <20021031085741.W22480-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <20021030180238.A7388@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> [ Data: 2002-10-30 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: [PATCH: libc]Re: gnome on current ] > > > > Maybe the workaround for now is to make the symbols in libXThrStub.so > > > > weak? > > > > > > They *are* weak Terry. The problem is that every bloody definition is weak > > > so the linker has no way of picking the one definition which will actually > > > work. The real problem is that the actual working threads library doesn't > > > provide strong symbols to allow it to override all the other stubs. > > > > First strong/last weak should win. You are saying "last weak" is not > > winning. That's a linker bug. > > Considering that I built the same applications and ran the same applications > fine a while ago, and we've had a binutils upgrade, and things don't break > on other systems, I'm inclined to assume there are linker bugs afoot, and > all the other speculative stuff seems to be based on misunderstandings or > bad information. I'm not misunderstanding things. I single stepped through the call to pthread_setspecific(), watched the linker lookup the symbol and followed it through into the wrong place (i.e. the stub instead of the real implementation). -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Phone: +44 20 8348 6160 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021031085741.W22480-100000>