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

[Geoff Keating <geoffk@ozemail.com.au>]

> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:17:19 +0100
> From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>
> Cc: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)

> 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 doesn't happen to me, building 2.0.106 with binutils 981124+patch
and egcs 1.1b.  I imagine it would show up on the automated build test
thing too, which is now working again, and uses binutils 981201 and
egcs 1.1.1.

Is it possible you are somehow compiling without optimisation?

-- 
Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@ozemail.com.au>