This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc 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]

[Bug libc/15648] multiple definition of `__lll_lock_wait_private'

--- Comment #18 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Static linking of -lpthread never worked well, there are tons of issues with
> that, which is why in Fedora/RHEL we are just linking all the content of
> libpthread.a using ld -r into libpthread.o and libpthread.a contains just
> that single object.  Then this bug doesn't exist.  There are many
> assumptions (unwritten dependencies) in between libpthread object files,
> with dynamic linking you simply have all of them together or nothing, but
> with libpthread, unless you do that ld -r hack, you don't.  Not to mention
> that many programs (e.g. gcc gthr.h) check using weakref for availability of
> some pthread_* symbol(s) and if non-NULL, assume all of libpthread is
> available, rather than random parts from it.

Then we need to file a bug to fix glibc to use ld -r or gather community
consensus that static linking is no longer supported. Current community
consensus is that we will continue to support static linking where possible.

> Why exactly are you linking statically? 

Good question, but it doesn't answer the more fundamental question of glibc
support for static linking.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

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