On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:48:34PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > That would be nice, but we have a real problem at hand. As I said, I > > > think that ld(1) should be smart enough to reorder libc/libc_r so that > > > libc_r is always linked before libc. This is clearly not the case > > > right now. Unfortunately there is no easy way to reproduce this, but > > > if you have some spare CPU cycles try to remore explicit -pthread from > > > ports/mail/evolution/Makefile, build the port on -current and do `ldd > > > /usr/X11R6/bin/evolution'. You will see that libc.so.X precedes > > > libc_r.so.X, even though -lc wasn't supplied to a linker, while -lc_r > > > was. > > When you say ld(1), are you perhaps mean rtld-elf.so.1 (aka rtld(1))? ld(1) only _links_ when static linkage was requested (which is not the case here), or writes dynamic dependencies on shared objects.
> > You aren't including the linker lines for the libraries > > specified before the -lc_r (which may themselves be linked > > against libc.so instead of libc_r.so, which is wrong), > > and you aren't including the final link line. > > > > See the recent patch to ldd to make it work against .so > > libraries (unfortunately, it's only in -current, not yet > > in -stable). > > Heh, actually I'm an author of that patch. :))) > *LOL* Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
