Am Mit, 16 Jun 1999 schrieb Eric Ding:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Franz Sirl [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hmm, I browsed thru the binutils code and didn't see anything suspicious. Is
there any chance you can strip that down to a small testcase with a few
symbols? That would help debugging a lot.

Sure can.  Create a file (let's call it foo.c)... it just contains:

    int foo_tester()
    {
         return(twenty());
    }

Then run the following:

    gcc -fPIC -c foo.c

After the compilation, run:

    gcc -shared -o libfoo.so foo.o
    gcc -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o libfoo.so foo.o
    gcc -shared -Wl,--noinhibit-exec -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o libfoo.so foo.o

On Intel, the first succeeds, the second fails (as expected), and the
third succeeds in building a .so file, even with the "undefined
reference" error.

On PPC, the first succeeds, but the second and third both fail.

Ok, I've put up a 1b RPM for testing. Let me know if it works as expected. Note
the dev.linuxppc.org has changed IP address, so you might have to use the direct
169.207.161.2.

Franz.

[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list.  Replies are ]]
[[ not  forced  back  to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]]
[[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting.   ]]