Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:34:36 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> Cc: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Bruce Bauman <bbauman@wgate.com> Subject: Re: GDB 4.18 and shared libraries (Mozilla) Message-ID: <20000919103436.B94601@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009071310430.49495-100000@iclub.nsu.ru>; from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru on Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:14:30PM %2B0700 References: <ybuzoll5hbm.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009071310430.49495-100000@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:14:30PM +0700, Max Khon wrote: > ld is broken. apply attached patch, rebuild everything in > src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils and relink libraries. > the patch is taken from binutils cvs (elf32-i386.c 1.8 -> 1.9) > there is open PR for this (20373) but I cannot submit a followup for some > reason. I do not know why you say `ld' when it is a most a BFD problem. I also dare say that if you were using GDB 5.0 (or a snapshot from the HEAD branch) this would not be a problem. Rev 1.8 of bfd/elf32-i386.c is the version in Binutils 2.10.0, rev 1.9 was committed after the binutils_2.10 release branch was created. The Binutils maintainers do not feel there are any critical bugs in 2.10.0. Thus they have not committed rev 1.9 to the binutils_2.10 release branch. You are free to try to convince them that rev 1.9 should be committed to the binutils_2.10 release branch so that it will show up in Binutils 2.10.1. But that is a battle I do not wish to fight. Thus the lack of the rev 1.8-1.9 change is a GDB/Binutils problem, not a FreeBSD one. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) P.S. I do not read the freebsd-stable mailing list. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000919103436.B94601>