This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: __gmon_start__ issues between 2.1.x and 2.2.x on sparc(?)
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Subject: Re: __gmon_start__ issues between 2.1.x and 2.2.x on sparc(?)
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:00:43 +0100
- Cc: Philip Blundell <pb at futuretv dot com>,Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>,libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <Your message of "21 Feb 2001 16:07:31 +0100." <ho8zn013d8.fsf@gee.suse.de> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221181020.03236ec8@mail.lauterbach.com> <hoae7gx891.fsf@gee.suse.de>
On Wednesday 21 February 2001 18:20, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> writes:
> > At 16:30 21.02.2001, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > >In message <ho8zn013d8.fsf@gee.suse.de>, Andreas Jaeger writes:
> > > >Is this correct? Anything else I can do to check that binutils are
> > > >correct now?
> > >
> > >If you can invent a self-contained testcase, it would be worth adding to
> > > the ld testsuite.
> >
> > See http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2000-10/msg00056.html
> >
> > Unfortunately the html version lost the file names of the attachments,
> > but you can d/l the mbox formatted archive to get it.
>
> Are you sure the testcase is valid? It fails on sparc - but also on
> ia32.
>
> Can you rerun it with "fixed" binutils?
Oops, I looked at the email again and noticed that I didn't specify the
compile line for the executable correctly. Add -fpic or -fPIC to it and you
should see difference:
gcc -fpic tA-22.c -L213 -ltB -o tA
I verified here on PPC that current binutils avoids the segfault.
Franz.