From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jan 18 14:23:28 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19610
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:23:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from austin.polstra.com (austin.polstra.com [206.213.73.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19586
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:23:08 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jdp@austin.polstra.com)
Received: from austin.polstra.com (jdp@localhost)
	by austin.polstra.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA15844;
	Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:23:03 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jdp)
Message-Id: <199801182223.OAA15844@austin.polstra.com>
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: dladdr hax 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:18:01 GMT."
    <199801182218.PAA04330@usr04.primenet.com> 
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:23:03 -0800
From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> You aren't going to get what you probably thought you were going to
> get; spcifically, the libc symbol names will actually give you the
> address of the stub function linked from the shared library into the
> main program, not the address of the function in the C library.

Yes, I know.  That's why I wanted to see the output.  I wanted to see
whether Solaris bothered to resolve those to their true addresses.

> I pointed that out with my first test program and output (very
> similar to yours).

Sorry, I didn't see that.

John