From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <199906162114.RAA11468@tuxedo.applix.com> To: Franz Sirl cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: ld bug with -Bsymbolic --noinhibit-exec (2.9.1.0.990418-1c) In-Reply-To: Message from Franz Sirl of "Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:40:31 +0200." <99061622444300.00949@ns1102.munich.netsurf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.12.0 - "Nishi-Kanazawa") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:14:25 -0400 From: Eric Ding Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: >>>>> 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. Eric -- Senior Software Engineer / ericding@applix.com <>< Applix, Inc. / 112 Turnpike Road / Westboro MA 01581-2842 [[ 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. ]]