This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com 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]

Re: Symbol versioning question


hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) writes:

> Steve Dunham <dunham@cse.msu.edu> writes:
> > foo.c contains:

> >   main(){}

> > I compile with:

> >   gcc foo.c -lgpm

> > and get:

> >   /usr/lib/libgpm.so: undefined reference to `popen@@GLIBC_2.0'
> >   /usr/lib/libgpm.so: undefined reference to `pclose@@GLIBC_2.0'

> > This happened after moving from glibc-2.0.100 to glibc-2.0.105. 

> > I'm using binutils 2.9.1.0.15.

> > "objdump -T /lib/libc-2.0.105.so |grep popen " gives:

> > 0000000000057dc4 g    DF .text  000000000000008c  GLIBC_2.1   _IO_popen
> > 000000000005a154 g    DF .text  000000000000008c (GLIBC_2.0)  popen
> > 0000000000057dc4 g    DF .text  000000000000008c  GLIBC_2.1   popen
> > 000000000005a154 g    DF .text  000000000000008c (GLIBC_2.0)  _IO_popen
> > 

> glibc 2.1 is still in beta. I added those popen stuff to fix a bug.
> You may have to recompile all the libraries against the new glibc
> 2.1.

I thought this was the case.  I just wanted to make sure it was correct
behaviour for "ld" to not see that the "popen@@GLIBC_2.0" symbol was
made available by "libc.so.6".  (It essentially was claiming that a
symbol which was there didn't exist.)

I assume there is a technical reason why ld doesn't or shouldn't know
about the existence of the older symbol?


Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu


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