On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > And none of the offsets match the end of the relocation address ld.so is > > > talking about. > > > > > > Now, for something interesting, LD_DEBUG=all says this: > > > binding file ./libxul.so [0] to /usr/lib/libstartup-notification-1.so.0 > > > [0]: normal symbol `_restgpr_29_x' > > > > > > just before failing, and it (obviously) fails on the first of these > > > relocations. > > > > Actually, it doesn't fail on the first one. > > libxul.so is loaded at 0x0f007000. The failure is at 0x0f9f0148, which > > makes the relocation for offset 0x009e9148, which makes it the 3963th. > > (easier to find the relocation when you have the base of the library in > memory, really odd alignment, by the way) > > All in all, it looks to me like it used to work by mere luck, but > somehow now fails because the lib containing the _restgpr_29_x symbol > is too far, which libgcc_s.so would likely be as well. So using a > R_PPC_REL24 relocation for these undefined symbols looks like a big > stretch.
FWIW, taking a look at where these relocations take place show that the corresponding symbols (from the -dbg package) are in functions coming from objects that *are* built -fPIC. It also happens that, in libnss3-1d, the libcrmf.a file contains the same kind of relocations, and all the files built in that lib *are* built -fPIC. That would help having a smaller testcase than iceweasel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org