Re: __stat: should it end up as UND in libc.so or not?

[Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>]

At 15:15 11.12.98 , H.J. Lu wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

Maybe this line in syscalls.list contains a typo?:
sys_stat        xstat   stat            2       __syscall_stat
                       ^^^^^^

What drives me crazy that this didn't happen with 105 and 106 built with
binutils-2.9.1.0.15.

Franz.