Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:47:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Jens <jensl@...s.mine.nu> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: problems with dynamic linking since 0.9.1 On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> * Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2013-08-14 10:27:10 -0400]: >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:06:29AM +0200, Jens wrote: >>>> bash-4.1# ld -V >>>> GNU ld version 2.17 >>>> Supported emulations: >>>> elf_x86_64 >>>> elf_i386 >>>> i386linux >>>> >>>> Hope this helps. >>> >>> Thanks. I don't see anything obviously wrong in the trace or verbose >>> output. Unless /lib is where you have musl installed (which doesn't >>> seem to be the case, the -L /lib/. probably should not be there, but >>> it doesn't seem related to the problem. Have you run the file command >>> and/or readelf -a on libc.so as a sanity check? Perhaps something >>> about the toolchain or existing wrapper messed up the link of libc.so. >>> >> >> wasn't there an issue that the last gplv2 binutils version >> failed to produce a working libc.so with -Bsymbolic-functions? > > My recollection was that it failed to support -Bsymbolic-functions at > all and would produce an error when encountering it, so this makes me > wonder how generation of libc.so succeeded at all... The musl libc in this case is built with binutils-2.20.1, since the older binutils (2.17) didnt work. You helped me with this exact problem some months ago. I have a build-environment where I specify all the dependencies for each build. binutils-2.20.1 is then a dependency for musl (where binutils 2.17 is the default). So for my use-case I can always specify a later binutils as a dependency for all musl builds. Though dynamic linking is a low priority for me, since all resulting binaries must be statically linked. Regards, Jens > > Rich >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.