This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: is main() provided by a library valid C ?


On Fri, 13 May 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:47:01AM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > The circumstances:
> > The weak definition of main() is moved from libc.so to crt1.o written in 
> > asm as '.protected main'.
> 
> Why?
> 
> You certainly can't declare main as a protected symbol if it lives in a
> library.  I don't see why you want it to be a protected symbol, either.

I wasn't clear enough.
libc does not define anything about main (not even as weak:
glibc/uclibc/dietlibc). It is obvious that it can't be defined as 
protected in a library. To remove any weak declaration of main from libc, 
one solution was to put it into crt1.o. This change (although .protected) 
does not fail on most of the apps, but fails 2 tests (subversion and 
bind), because those tests "deliver" main() from a library.

My question is:
Is it valid to provide main() from a library or not? If it is valid, then 
the solution to do '.protected main' in crt1.S is not ok and/or linker 
fails. If it is not valid, then the apps themselves should be corrected.

Peter

-- 
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net>           ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08  BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]