Re: potential help for #433874
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:30:45AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> | Unresolvable symbol vfprintf@GLIBC_2.0
>
> <screenshot about="more on vfprintf">
> $ grep vfprintf@GLIBC build_netboot.log | sort -u | grep need
> needed_symbols adding vfprintf@GLIBC_2.0, weak: False
> needed_symbols adding vfprintf@GLIBC_2.4, weak: False
> Still need: vfprintf@GLIBC_2.0
> Still need: vfprintf@GLIBC_2.4
> </screenshot>
>
> How can I check
> if the file that provides vfprintf@GLIBC_2.0 is present on the build system?
objdump -T /lib/libc.so.6
> To rule out that symbol versioning in mklibs is fixed.
| # mklibs-readelf --print-symbols-provided /lib/libc.so.6 | grep vfprintf
| __nldbl_vfprintf False GLIBC_2.4 True
| _IO_vfprintf False GLIBC_2.4 True
| _IO_vfprintf False GLIBC_2.0 False
| __nldbl__IO_vfprintf False GLIBC_2.4 True
| __vfprintf_chk False GLIBC_2.4 True
| __vfprintf_chk False GLIBC_2.3.4 False
| __nldbl___vfprintf_chk False GLIBC_2.4 True
| vfprintf False GLIBC_2.0 False
| vfprintf False GLIBC_2.4 True
In my test it finds it on sparc.
> Something else
> | Still need: _dl_starting_up@Base
> What about those _name@Base symbols?
"No version".
Bastian
--
War isn't a good life, but it's life.
-- Kirk, "A Private Little War", stardate 4211.8
Reply to: