Bug#351629: Still in 2.3.6.ds1-10 with sarge binutils
Is there a reasonable way to use an older libc6-dev with a current libc6? I wouldn't mind using the version from sarge when I want to use gcc-3.3, but the dependencies don't allow it. As I asked before, is there a good reason for that (seeing as libstdc++6-dev doesn't have that restriction), or would that combination work? Thanks, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351629: Still in 2.3.6.ds1-10 with sarge binutils
Hi, I don't know if I can reopen this as a normal user, but I can still reproduce this with libc6-dev from etch and binutils from sarge, that's an unsupported mix. there is a gcc-3.3 in etch, binutils in etch, please install this combination. I was referring to the problem described by the orignal reporter, i.e., which gcc-3.3 doesn't matter, but post-sarge binutils doesn't work: Error also goes away if binutils is upgraded from sarge version to version currently in unstable. But this upgrade in turn causes problems with usage of g++ 3.3, described at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16625. This problem happens on Debian if binutils are post-sarge, with any version of g++-3.3 packages. So at least, dependency on recent binutils should be added. But it would be much better if compatibility with sarge binutils will be preserved in libc6-dev until a workable combination of g++-3.3 and post-sarge binutils will be found. Unfortunately, we do have to use g++-3.3 ABI here, and I'm sure we are not alone with that. I guess this is really a bug in binutils, but it still means this package is apparently incompatible with g++-3.3 for now, due to a few mysterious name changes in libc_nonshared.a. That leaves no suitable package in etch, hence my two questions above. Thanks, Michael P.S. Should a copy of this bug be sent to the binutils package? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351629: Still in 2.3.6.ds1-10 with sarge binutils
Hi, I don't know if I can reopen this as a normal user, but I can still reproduce this with libc6-dev from etch and binutils from sarge, as the initial report stated. Unless the conflict between newer binutils and g++-3.3 has been fixed, that would seem to still leave a problem. I'm using the original test case: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/file/devel/test# gcc-3.3 -shared -o libtest.so test.c /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a(atexit.oS)(.text.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx+0x0): In function `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx': : multiple definition of `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx' /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/crtbeginS.o(.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx+0x0): first defined here collect2: ld returned 1 exit status [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/file/devel/test# dpkg -l libc6-dev libc6 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 binutils ii libc6-dev 2.3.6.ds1-10GNU C Library: Development Libraries and Header Files ii libc6 2.3.6.ds1-10GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii gcc-3.3 3.3.5-13The GNU C compiler ii gcc-3.4 3.4.3-13sarge1 The GNU C compiler ii binutils2.15-6 The GNU assembler, linker and binary utilities Aside from upgrading binutils, I found that the following combinations compiled and linked without errors: - gcc-3.4 (with any version of libc6-dev) - gcc-3.3 after replacing /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a with the version from sarge's libc6-dev - gcc-3.3 after replacing /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/crtbeginS.o and crtendS.o with the versions from gcc-3.4 (located in /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux/3.4.4/) This seems to stem from differences in the functions listed in the error message in the files in question; for example see [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/file/devel/test# egrep -ao '[[:print:]]*(thunk|atexit)[[:print:]]*' /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/crtbeginS.o .gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/file/devel/test# egrep -ao '[[:print:]]*(thunk|atexit)[[:print:]]*' /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux/3.4.4/crtbeginS.o [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/file/devel/test# egrep -ao '[[:print:]]*(thunk|atexit)[[:print:]]*' /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a |grep -vx __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx |head -n3 atexit .text.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx atexit.oS/ 1168353356 0 0 100644 1088 ` [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/file/devel/test# egrep -ao '[[:print:]]*(thunk|atexit)[[:print:]]*' oldlibc_dev/usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a |grep -vx __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx |head -n3 atexit .gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx atexit.oS/ 1164718190 0 0 100644 1028 ` So my questions are: 1) Why were these changes made to libc_nonshared.a (in two different minor libc6-dev uploads, it seems, including an NMU), and could they be reverted again for compatibility with gcc-3.3; and 2) Is there in the mean time any problem with using the older sarge version of libc6-dev with a current libc6? The dependency is looser between libstdc++6-dev and libstdc++6, for instance, allowing any later version of the latter to be used. Is there a specific reason that the libc6-dev-libc6 dependency is an equality? Thanks, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
