This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: libm.so vs libgcj.so

From: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>
To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, jakub at redhat dot com
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 17:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: libm.so vs libgcj.so
References: <200305181542.LAA12391@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <200305181949.PAA14100@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>

HJ and Jakub,
     Does the fact that glibc >= 2.3.2 no longer considers non-weak
and weak symbols in shared libs to be different imply that the
warning (and perhaps the actual test) in prelink should be changed
from "undefined non-weak symbols" to just "undefined symbols"?
I found that confusing myself when I was looking for the missing
linkage for some shared libs and discovered that the symbols in
question provided by libm.so were in fact weak rather than non-weak.
                              Jack

Follow-Ups:
- Re: libm.so vs libgcj.so
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- libm.so vs libgcj.so
  - From: Jack Howarth
- Re: libm.so vs libgcj.so
  - From: Jack Howarth

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