Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Austin Foxley wrote:
On 04/16/2010 07:37 AM, Timo Teräs wrote:
We'll need to patch all the other arch's ldso as well to handle
protected symbols, but I'll apply this for now. If I'm not mistaken,
other archs will be no worse off than they are now in this situation.
Right?
Right. It makes things slightly better for other archs too, but
in practice it won't work until they support protected symbols too.
Finally looked at the ldso patch and I am not entirely happy with it.
I think the general structure should be different to make it easier
to follow the code and port it to other archs. I can probably
take a stab at it during the weekend but I have no env. to test in
so I will have to do it blindly.
Ok. I'm not too familiar with the ldso internals and structure,
so that was just the immediate fix I came up with.
I can test whatever you come up with on x86.
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
