From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22399 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2007 13:23:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 22168 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2007 13:23:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO sunsite.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.15.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:23:53 +0000 Received: from sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7EDTRwp007869; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:29:27 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l7EDTQc5007865; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:29:26 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:23:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Mike Frysinger Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, "H.J. Lu" , Greg Schafer Subject: Re: GNU hash-style compatibility problem on x86_64 Message-ID: <20070814132926.GR4603@sunsite.mff.cuni.cz> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20070814072231.GA1370@eyo32.local> <20070814125638.GA11842@caradoc.them.org> <20070814130154.GA22485@lucon.org> <200708140907.30639.vapier@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708140907.30639.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00204.txt.bz2 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". Jakub