Hi Kevin .. On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 11:44:33AM -0400, Kevin.Hendricks wrote: >So we have the *exact* same symbols you recompiled your glibc -2.2.5 >with the libgcc-compat patch from the libc-alpha mailing list (and used >a gcc-3.X compiler to do it .. right).
ehm ... the libgcc-compat patch is not included into the glibc ..
because there was much to do, the most changes are done but not all ..
so I decided to leave it out. But this patch is used, if you compile
glibc with gcc-3.1, and that is not the case in debian this time.
>If so I can't understand why mozilla has missing symbols issues with the
>build.
>That is very strange.
>So to recap - we have 3 problems to squash
>1. my original build fails with sigill on your machine but when
>cppuhelper is recompiled with -O0 the sigills go away (I have updated
>from gcc 3.1 to gcc 3.1.1-pre to try and stomp this one out but Daniel
>seems to think this is a bug in our new gcc3 bridge code that I have to
>track down
>2. once past #1, when mozilla address book stuff starts up you get a
>segfault or a missing
>symbol problem. The issue here is glibc 2.2.5 related and has 4
>possibilities:
>- stock glibc-2.2.5 built with gcc-2.95.X
this is the glibc in debian :)
>I seem to be using glibc-2.2.5 with libgcc compat patch built with gcc
>3.X
We have to build glibc-2.2.5 build with gcc-2.95, because gcc-3.x is
not supoorted in debian yet.
>But this seems to introduce a versioned and non-versioned symbols
>related to __udivdi3 that somehow appear in the mozilla libraries
>libnspr4.so, libxpcom.so, and libmozjs.so.
yes ..
>The question is what is the correct way to have everyone be compatible
>with binaries built with gcc-3.X on the different types of glibc 2.2.5
>combinations?
I can't believe, that this is so difficult, because, glibc is not build
with g++ .. so there should not be any incompatibilities .. but ..
*wait*
if you build your glibc with gcc-3.x, you will pointed out, that you
will break any compatibility to other programs, which linked against the
glibc, which is build with gcc-2.95. OK, I will say, the OpenOffice.org
team has to build OpenOffice.org twice. ....
>Do you have access to a glibc-2.2.5 without libgcc-compat patch built
>with gcc-2.95.X that we could compile Mozilla 1.0 on and check what
>versions of that symbol exist in those mozilla libraries? Whatever they
>are, we have to be the same since the majority of systems out there are
>using that combination I would expect.
The debian-glibc is that, what you are looking for.
The mozilla-binaries can be found here:
http://bourbaki.math.uni-kiel.de/~jpalic/OpenOffice.org/
>3. Your cppu build with debug=TRUE fails since the alignment issue of
>structure inherited from a parent is showing a different alignment in a
>structure than the code wants.
>Hopefully you have just somehow improperly defined #define
>MAX_ALIGNMENT_4 in cppu somehow. If not, then something has changed
>seriously about alignment of inherited structures inside structures that
>follow doulbes, ints, etc
I will try that, when my OOo build has finished!
*build*
Regards
jan
--
.''`. Jan-Hendrik Palic |
: :' : ** Debian GNU/ Linux ** | ** OpenOffice.org ** ,.. ,..
`. `' http://www.debian.org | http://www.openoffice.org ,: ..` `
`- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ' ` `
pgpi5td3xQHmC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
