Rob Landley wrote: > 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 > Hi Rob, finally I've got some time to review and commit my old patch to move _dl_iterate_phdr into libc.{so,a}. Committed on trunk rev 24090.
Cheers, Carmelo _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc