Re: problems with ctype...

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 09:03:54AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 08:52:35AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >> Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > It certainly works fine for me, but I am not using the same tools.
> >> > I am using GCC 3.2 with RH modifications and binutils is also a RH version.
> >> 
> >> I just tried it with newer binutils (2.12.90.0.15 20020717) and that
> >> worked fine.  We might need to document the minimal supported binutils
> >> version.
> >
> > Ours is binutils 2.13.90.0.2. Well, we need to find out the oldest
> > binutils which worked ok and also write a binutils testcase whcih will
> > ensure this will work right from now on.
> 
> I can easily test this with my old and broken binutils (2.12.90.0.4
> 20020408) but so far I didn't fully grab the problem and how a
> testcase might look.
> 
> > I think it is an useful feature to be able to access a compat-only variable
> > (and getting to it through aliases doesn't work because of COPY relocs).

Actually, looking at it again, what is in CVS doesn't work at all.
Just readelf -Wr libc.so | grep __ctype to find out.
If it was supposed to work, it would have to have __ctype_b@GLIBC_2.0 
(or __ctype_b@@GLIBC_2.0) etc. dynamic relocs.
I'm afraid we're back where we used to be, ie. either have to make these
symbols @@GLIBC_2.0 etc. (while leaving the headers as is, ie. not declaring
nor using them), or have to apply post-link hackery using libelf, or
come up with a new binutils solution and require binutils 2.14+.

	Jakub