Steve, Sorry for having you run down for a few days. I just did a few testing here. The latest GCC 2.96.x snapshot from RedHat, which I assume you are using, per your previous post, breaks OpenDx for RedHat 6.x compiled with GCC 2.95.x
I have filed this as a bug with RedHat. The GCC 2.96 will be the base compiler on RedHat 7.0, when released this Fall. I receieved RH 7.0 Beta-2 today, and ran into the same trouble you are having. RedHat Beta-2 has GCC 2.96 and it broke binary compability for several applications. I will compile DX 4.1.1 and release a newer DX archive for users who are using GCC 2.96 or higher snapshots on RedHat. Suhaib Steve Ettorre wrote: > > Suhaib- > > Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, when I tried to implement it here is what > happened: > > /usr/local/dx/bin_linux > dad.27% ldd * > builder: > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > dxexec: > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > dxui: > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > prompter: > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > startupui: > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > tutor: > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > > Not very promising - is it? > > -S. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" wrote: > > > The bst way to find the names of dynamic libraries... cd to dx/bin_linux > > and type: > > > > ldd * > > > > This should output the names of all the libraries dynamically linked to > > executables. You can check if you have the same dynamic libraries on your > > system, > > if not setup symbolic links. Unfortunately, RedHat uses weird names for > > libstdc++.so and change them to weird names each time they release a new rpm > > of libstdc++. I do not have a valid explaination why RedHat developers > > love to rename libstdc++ to something soooooooooo weird which causes > > applications compiled on one version of RedHat to break on other version > > of RedHat. It is a nightmare for developers. It would be a whole lot > > easier, if they stick to standard libstdc++.so. > > > > I am RedHat Beta team for RedHat upcoming > > release of RH 7.0. I will raise this question on their beta-testers site. > > I hope they listen and stop susing the weird libstdc++ blah blah numbers > > from one RPM release to another. > > > > Suhaib > > > > > Hi- > > > > > > Following the suggestion from Tom Gardiner, I have examined the soft > > > links for libstdc in /usr/lib. Here is what is currently setup: > > > > > > > > > 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 30 May 22 19:07 > > > libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2 -> libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so > > > 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 May 22 19:07 > > > libstdc++-libc6.1-2.so.3 -> libstdc++-3-libc6.1-2-2.10.0.so > > > > > > Note, I have the link libstdc++-libc6.1-2.so.3 -> > > > libstdc++-3-libc6.1-2-2.10.0.so. This differs from what Tom identified > > > (i.e., libstdc++-libc6.1-2.so.3 -> libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so). > > > > > > Also note, I am running a very recent snapshot of the gcc suite of > > > compilers. The rpm packages for the dynamic libraries > > > libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so and ibstdc++-3-libc6.1-2-2.10.0.so are > > > libstdc++-compat-2.95.3-0.20000323 and libstdc++-2.95.3-0.20000323, > > > respectively. Does this seem to be ok? > > > > > > One last thing, I am using the rpm package for opendx-4.1.0-1. I have > > > found README files in /usr/local/dx/doc but have not been able to locate > > > any specific instructions dealing with setting links to libstdc. If > > > anyone could point towards where I can find this information, I would > > > appreciate it. > > > > > > TIA, > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Steve Ettorre > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > "...thinking is not consciousness - > > > it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -- > Steve Ettorre > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------- > "...thinking is not consciousness - > it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh > -------------------------------------------
