From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17777 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2007 21:10:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 17761 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2007 21:10:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:10:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l98LAE03010998 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:10:14 -0400 Received: from gateway.sf.frob.com (vpn-14-25.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.25]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l98LADRh002333 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:10:13 -0400 Received: from magilla.localdomain (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25B0357B; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by magilla.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 5281) id C1E9E4D04CC; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:10:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: GNU libc hackers Subject: Re: Testsuite failure in check-localplt In-Reply-To: Andreas Jaeger's message of Monday, 8 October 2007 21:33:10 +0200 References: X-Antipastobozoticataclysm: Bariumenemanilow Message-Id: <20071008211011.C1E9E4D04CC@magilla.localdomain> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:10:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 Look for the relocs in libc.so that refer to those symbols. Probably they should be calling __read, which already has libc_hidden_proto. If they are in code never reached by ISO C-only, then they could legitimately stick to read for aesthetic purposes if one really cared, but then you'd need to add libc_hidden_proto for read in include/unistd.h, which we haven't needed yet. (If they are in low-level linux-specific code, they might want to be using INLINE_SYSCALL anyway.) Thanks, Roland