From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26507 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2002 05:15:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26491 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 05:15:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.160.52.195) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 05:15:03 -0000 Received: from dhcp187.sf.frob.com (dhcp187.sf.frob.com [192.168.1.187]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (8.11.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g8G5CVX20960; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from roland@localhost) by dhcp187.sf.frob.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8G5CUF04935; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:12:30 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:15:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200209160512.g8G5CUF04935@dhcp187.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: GNU libc hacker Subject: Re: problems with ctype... In-Reply-To: Andreas Jaeger's message of Monday, 16 September 2002 05:55:09 +0200 X-Antipastobozoticataclysm: Bariumenemanilow X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 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. In my build the libc.so.6 symbol table contains (this is readelf -s output): 988: 00112a40 4 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT 16 __ctype_toupper@GLIBC_2.0 3865: 00112a40 4 OBJECT LOCAL DEFAULT 16 __ctype_toupper and the dynamic symbol table contains: 5948: 00112a40 4 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT 16 __ctype_toupper@GLIBC_2.0 In libc_pic.a, lc-ctype.os has: 25: 00000000 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT UND __ctype_toupper and ctype/ctype-info.os has: 32: 0000000c 4 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT 10 __ctype_toupper 39: 0000000c 4 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT 10 __ctype_toupper@GLIBC_2.0 Those are the only __ctype_toupper references. How does this compare with the symbols in your build? Perhaps the ld behavior is different. I don't know what the *IND* magic in the linker error message is. I presume that your libc.so.6 symbol tables must look different from mine, or the error doesn't make sense. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be the case that the references in lc-ctype.os uses the versioned name when it's being linked -shared with the object that defines the non-default versioned name. But I think not, since there is also a plain global __ctype_toupper defined in ctype-info.os. I could understand the multiple definition error more if it came up doing the ld -shared instead.