This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: __stat: should it end up as UND in libc.so or not?
- To: Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com (Franz Sirl)
- Subject: Re: __stat: should it end up as UND in libc.so or not?
- From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:15:02 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: libc-alpha@cygnus.com
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem with glibc-2.0.106 that depends on the binutils version I use.
> With binutils-2.9.1.0.18, gas-981124 (which is partly broken), gas-981208
> and 106 I get:
> [root@kernel:/usr/src/redhat/glibc/BUILD/glibc-2.0.106/build-ppc-linux]#
> objdump -T libc.so|grep __stat
> 00000000 D *UND* 00000000 __stat
> [root@kernel:/usr/src/redhat/glibc/BUILD/glibc-2.0.106/build-ppc-linux]#
>
> With binutils-2.9.1.0.1[56] and 105 I get:
> [root@kernel:/usr/src/redhat/glibc/BUILD/glibc-2.0.106/build-ppc-linux]#
> objdump -T /lib/libc-2.0.105.so|grep __stat
> [root@kernel:/usr/src/redhat/glibc/BUILD/glibc-2.0.106/build-ppc-linux]#
>
> So it's listed as UND only in the newly built lib and the difference seems
> to be the binutils version. Currently I no longer know what's correct and
> whom to blame. Can somebody enlighten me?
> AFAI recall, the UND should be there, but I can't find the discussion in my
> archives anymore.
> As this seems binutils dependent, I think it would be wise to check the
> particular feature/bug involved during configure, cause installing a lib
> with UND __stat on a system where the apps are compiled against a lib
> without UND __stat, will render this system unuseable. And not everybody
> installs from an rpm like me...
>
> While checking for this I also noticed the the glibc sources use both
> __stat and stat to call the stat-function. Shouldn't that be consistent
> thruout the lib?
>
It must be a PPC bug in glibc since __stat is never defined for
libc.so. I didn't find any reference to __stat in libc, at least
not on x86.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)