陶捷 Tao Jie wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> ==== Check ELF runtime attributes ====
>
> ./lib/amd64/libelf.so.1: .SUNW_dynsymsort: duplicate 0x0000000000023e38:
> elf32_getehdr, _elf32_getehdr
> ./lib/amd64/libelf.so.1: .SUNW_dynsymsort: duplicate 0x00000000000240c8:
> _elf32_getphdr, elf32_getphdr
> ./lib/libelf.so.1: .SUNW_dynsymsort: duplicate 0x000052a8:
> elf32_xlatetof, _elf32_xlatetof
> ./lib/libelf.so.1: .SUNW_dynsymsort: duplicate 0x00015890:
> _elf32_getehdr, elf32_getehdr
> ./lib/libelf.so.1: .SUNW_dynsymsort: duplicate 0x00015b1c:
> _elf32_getphdr, elf32_getphdr
> ./lib/libelf.so.1: .SUNW_dynsymsort: duplicate 0x00015fd0:
> elf32_getshdr, _elf32_getshdr
>
> *
> /***********************************************************************************
> What's the problem here? Is it serious?
> ***********************************************************************************/*
>
No, you may safely ignore duplicate SUNW_dynsymsort messages. They are
more about tidiness than correctness.
See here if you are interested in the details:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2007052202/
I'm surprised to see those errors, as ON should be completely clean
following the putback described in that flag day message. One possibility
is that you are using a new copy of usr/src/tools/script/check_rtime.pl
against an older copy of the libelf code.
I have a full nightly build of the latest sources building right
now for other reasons, so I'll be able to double check that assertion
in a few hours...
- Ali
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
