Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:12:22 +1100 From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Weak symbols in libc_r broken? Message-ID: <20000313181222.L34294@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20000312230740.A8720@dragon.nuxi.com>; from David O'Brien on Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 11:07:40PM -0800 References: <20000313145201.H34294@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <20000312230740.A8720@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 11:07:40PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:52:02PM +1100, John Birrell wrote: > > Is it just me, or are the weak symbols in libc_r confusing the linker? > > Not just you. Jason and Mike Smith brought this to my attention on > Friday. I found that if one takes a fresh -CURRENT and then: > > cd /usr/src/lib/libc_r > cvs -q up -D 1/27/2000 > make all install > > the susp.c code from the A&W Ptheads Programming book > (http://www.aw.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/code/) would then work with > compiled with "-static -pthread". I don't think it is the linker's fault. To me it makes no sense to have a weak symbol and a strong symbol of the same name in the same library. I deleted the weak definitions in the _THREAD_SAFE PRSYSCALL in lib/libc/i386/SYS.h and the problem goes away. I don't understand why Jason needed to add them in the first place. -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ john.birrell@ca.com john.birrell@opendirectory.com.au 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?20000313181222.L34294>