From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Franz Sirl To: Eric Ding Subject: Re: ld bug with -Bsymbolic --noinhibit-exec (2.9.1.0.990418-1c) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:24:58 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org References: <199906162114.RAA11468@tuxedo.applix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99061723274300.01016@ns1102.munich.netsurf.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Am Mit, 16 Jun 1999 schrieb Eric Ding: >>>>>> Franz Sirl writes: > >> Hmm, I browsed thru the binutils code and didn't see anything suspicious. Is >> there any chance you can strip that down to a small testcase with a few >> symbols? That would help debugging a lot. > >Sure can. Create a file (let's call it foo.c)... it just contains: > > int foo_tester() > { > return(twenty()); > } > >Then run the following: > > gcc -fPIC -c foo.c > >After the compilation, run: > > gcc -shared -o libfoo.so foo.o > gcc -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o libfoo.so foo.o > gcc -shared -Wl,--noinhibit-exec -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o libfoo.so foo.o > >On Intel, the first succeeds, the second fails (as expected), and the >third succeeds in building a .so file, even with the "undefined >reference" error. > >On PPC, the first succeeds, but the second and third both fail. Ok, I've put up a 1b RPM for testing. Let me know if it works as expected. Note the dev.linuxppc.org has changed IP address, so you might have to use the direct 169.207.161.2. Franz. [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]] [[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting. ]]