On Tuesday 14 August 2007, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:07:29AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 August 2007, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:56:38AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 05:47:47AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > > Well, it sounds like a bug in binutils 2.17. There are so many of
> > > > > them and they have been fixed in the current binutils. I don't want
> > > > > to spend time on it unless it is reproducible in the current
> > > > > binutils.
> > > >
> > > > But wasn't the point of --hash-style=both to be compatible with older
> > > > tools?
> > >
> > > I don't recommend older tools on Linux. If it forces users to use
> > > the current binutils on Linux, it is even better.
> >
> > except that binutils-2.17 is "current binutils" ... not everyone
> > recognizes the snapshots as real releases (since they arent real GNU
> > releases)
>
> Well, if you build your glibc with newer binutils than that
> (otherwise it wouldn't be built with --hash-style=both), then you already
> weren't recognizing 2.17 as "current binutils".

or you were simply testing the latest snapshot and didnt realize you just 
boned yourself with an option that's supposed to be backwards compatible
-mike