From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3903 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: problems with dynamic linking since 0.9.1 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:58:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20130814205807.GS221@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130813110709.GH5368@port70.net> <20130813145259.GI5368@port70.net> <20130813180331.GE221@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130814142710.GN221@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130814144955.GJ5368@port70.net> <20130814145158.GO221@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1376513897 9605 80.91.229.3 (14 Aug 2013 20:58:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:58:17 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3907-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Aug 14 22:58:21 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V9i96-0005Wa-KR for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:58:20 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 10038 invoked by uid 550); 14 Aug 2013 20:58:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 10028 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2013 20:58:19 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3903 Archived-At: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47:08PM +0200, Jens wrote: > >My recollection was that it failed to support -Bsymbolic-functions at > >all and would produce an error when encountering it, so this makes me > >wonder how generation of libc.so succeeded at all... > > The musl libc in this case is built with binutils-2.20.1, since the > older binutils (2.17) didnt work. You helped me with this exact > problem some months ago. > > I have a build-environment where I specify all the dependencies for > each build. binutils-2.20.1 is then a dependency for musl (where > binutils 2.17 is the default). > > So for my use-case I can always specify a later binutils as a > dependency for all musl builds. Though dynamic linking is a low > priority for me, since all resulting binaries must be statically > linked. OK. It may be that binutils-2.20.1, at least with the options we're using, is somehow tagging the libc.so file as incompatible with older binutils. This would be unfortunate, and it's an issue I'd like to resolve if that's what it is. I'll see if I can reproduce it or if someone else (preferably someone on x86_64) can do so. Rich