Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:26:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH: libc]Re: gnome on current Message-ID: <20021031112514.L69202-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <20021031152348.A73783@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Max Khon wrote: > hi, there! > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:39:10AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Huh? Your statement is rather speculative stuff. Other systems (say > > Linux) are using the same linker we are. Please speculate less. Please > > grab an older ld and try to prove your speculation. > > I think the problem is in our dynamic linker or in the way we link > dynamic libraries or in the way we compile and link X11 libraries. > Linux also has pthreads symbols weakly defined > (some of them are defined in glibc, some of them in libpthread) > and does not have such problems. I think you are mistaken. On my RedHat 8.0 system, there are weak pthread_* symbols in libc.so and strong ones in libpthread.so. Linux doesn't use libXThrStub.so, presumably because libc.so's pthread_* symbols are suitable stubs. -- 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?20021031112514.L69202-100000>