On Monday 27 October 2008 15:02:19 Rob Landley wrote: > On Monday 27 October 2008 12:50:13 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > > Sorry for having confused with multiple patches/proposal and emails. > > Currently the dl_iterate_phdr symbols is defined in ld-uClibc.so.0 and > > libdl.a. The idea is to move into libc.so.0 and libc.a (exactly as glibc > > does). > > Well, that sounds like a good thing all by itself. Why is uClibc defining > it in a different place than glibc does right now? (And why don't more > programs break due to that?) > > For one thing, a statically linked program would never get dl_iterate_phdr > right now, right? (What does that symbol _do_, anyway? Is there some > documentation I should read up on somewhere?)
it turns out there's an existing gentoo bug on this: http://bugs.gentoo.org/117523 So yes, I think your patch should be applied (probably to 0.9.30.1): http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2008-January/018969.html Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc