From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <4.2.0.56.19990621112016.009bd720@mail.lauterbach.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:31:09 +0200 To: Eric Ding From: Franz Sirl Subject: Re: ld bug with -Bsymbolic --noinhibit-exec (2.9.1.0.990418-1c) Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org In-Reply-To: <199906181954.PAA01284@tuxedo.applix.com> References: <99061723274300.01016@ns1102.munich.netsurf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: At 21:54 18.06.99 , Eric Ding wrote: >Hi Franz, > >thanks for your help so far. After upgrading to 1b, linking works, but >actually running against those shared libraries doesn't seem to >necessarily work. But it's hard for me to tell where the bug is. If you still have problems after upgrading to 2.9.4.0.6 below, I'm willing to look further into it, but I assume it will be difficult, as you don't know the exact cause yourself. Can we rule out bugs in your source here? Did the executables created with 2.9.4.0.5 on x86 work fine? I'll also post my patch for the noinhibit-exec problem on the binutils-list for review later today. >The fact that LD_RUN_PATH needed to be set is still a red flag in my >mind... is that "correct" behavior? I know that Applixware linked and >ran OK with binutils from R4; would backtracking be an adequate >solution? Ok, the LD_RUN_PATH should be fixed now with: ftp://dev.linuxppc.org/users/fsirl/R5/RPMS/ppc/binutils-2.9.4.0.6-1a.ppc.rpm 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. ]]