On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 04:03:55PM -0300, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes wrote:
> Quoting Segher Boessenkool (2021-11-09 11:19:58)
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:39:46AM -0300, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes wrote:
> > > Ping.
> >
> > I did not get the original, and neither did the archives?
> >
> Strange, it's
Quoting Segher Boessenkool (2021-11-09 11:19:58)
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:39:46AM -0300, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes wrote:
> > Ping.
>
> I did not get the original, and neither did the archives?
>
Strange, it's on the archives.
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:39:46AM -0300, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes wrote:
> Ping.
I did not get the original, and neither did the archives?
> Historically this was added to fill gaps from ld.so.cache on early AT
> releases. This now are just causing errors and rework. Since AT5.0 the
> AT's
Ping.
-- >8 --
Historically this was added to fill gaps from ld.so.cache on early AT
releases. This now are just causing errors and rework. Since AT5.0 the
AT's ld.so is using a correctly configured ld.so.cache and sets the
DT_INTERP to AT's ld.so. This two factors are sufficient for an AT
Historically this was added to fill gaps from ld.so.cache on early AT
releases. This now are just causing errors and rework. Since AT5.0 the
AT's ld.so is using a correctly configured ld.so.cache and sets the
DT_INTERP to AT's ld.so. This two factors are sufficient for an AT
builded program to get
