On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 08:03:34PM -0700, Joseph Donaldson wrote: > Package: Bigloo > Version: 2.5b+really2.5c-beta-2002-09-23-2 > > > I am recieving the following error message when I > attempt to run the bigloo compiler. > > bigloo: relocation error: bigloo: symbol > __libc_stack_end, version GLIBC_2.1 not defined in > file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference > > It appears as though the bigloo executeable has a > reference to a symbol that is no longer defined in > ld-linux.so.2 with libc6 2.3.1-2.
I'm currently building using 2.2.5-14.3. I can't see why 2.3.1 would break binary compatibility. My ld-linux.so.2 shows (from objdump -x): Version definitions: 1 0x01 0x0ee1b232 ld-linux.so.2 2 0x00 0x0d696910 GLIBC_2.0 3 0x00 0x0d696911 GLIBC_2.1 GLIBC_2.0 4 0x00 0x09691f71 GLIBC_2.1.1 GLIBC_2.1 5 0x00 0x0d696912 GLIBC_2.2 GLIBC_2.1.1 6 0x00 0x09691a73 GLIBC_2.2.3 GLIBC_2.2 objdump reports from a newly built bigloo binary: Version References: required from ld-linux.so.2: 0x0d696911 0x00 08 GLIBC_2.1 required from libdl.so.2: 0x0d696911 0x00 09 GLIBC_2.1 0x0d696910 0x00 05 GLIBC_2.0 required from libm.so.6: 0x0d696910 0x00 03 GLIBC_2.0 required from libc.so.6: 0x09691a74 0x00 07 GLIBC_2.2.4 0x09691f73 0x00 06 GLIBC_2.1.3 0x0d696911 0x00 04 GLIBC_2.1 0x0d696910 0x00 02 GLIBC_2.0 I'm not sure what these symbols exactly stand for (versions of the ABI ?), but it seems quite probable to me that this is a problem of backward compatibility removed in 2.3, and probably is a bug in libc6. What do glibc people think ? Regards, -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: Pro: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>