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 Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:34:53PM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> 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.

No, my question above is my response to this, which is what I figured
you were doing.  You haven't explained why you're making this change.
What is the problem with a weak reference from libc?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC


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