Bug#342755: glibc: ftbfs [sparc] Error: symbol `__bind' is already defined
> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bind.S: Assembler messages:
> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bind.S:5: Error: symbol `__bind' is already defined
I think this will solve that problem.
#! /bin/sh -e
# All lines beginning with `# DP:' are a description of the patch.
# DP: Description: Fix __bind redefinition problem
# DP: Related bugs:
# DP: Dpatch author: Clint Adams
# DP: Patch author: Clint Adams
# DP: Upstream status: Not Submitted
# DP: Status Details:
# DP: Date: 2005-12-10
PATCHLEVEL=0
if [ $# -ne 2 ]; then
echo >&2 "`basename $0`: script expects -patch|-unpatch as argument"
exit 1
fi
case "$1" in
-patch) patch -d "$2" -f --no-backup-if-mismatch -p$PATCHLEVEL < $0;;
-unpatch) patch -d "$2" -f --no-backup-if-mismatch -R -p$PATCHLEVEL < $0;;
*)
echo >&2 "`basename $0`: script expects -patch|-unpatch as argument"
exit 1
esac
exit 0
# append the patch here and adjust the -p? flag in the patch calls.
--- sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc32/socket.S.old 2003-08-31 13:23:11.000000000 -0400
+++ sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc32/socket.S 2005-12-10 12:46:23.313930095 -0500
@@ -40,7 +40,11 @@
The .S files for the other calls just #define socket and #include this. */
#ifndef __socket
-#define __socket P(__,socket)
+# ifndef NO_WEAK_ALIAS
+# define __socket P(__,socket)
+# else
+# define __socket socket
+# endif
#endif
.globl __socket
@@ -105,4 +109,6 @@
END (__socket)
+#ifndef NO_WEAK_ALIAS
weak_alias (__socket, socket)
+#endif
--- sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64/socket.S.old 2003-08-31 13:23:11.000000000 -0400
+++ sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64/socket.S 2005-12-10 12:46:23.313930095 -0500
@@ -40,7 +40,11 @@
The .S files for the other calls just #define socket and #include this. */
#ifndef __socket
-#define __socket P(__,socket)
+# ifndef NO_WEAK_ALIAS
+# define __socket P(__,socket)
+# else
+# define __socket socket
+# endif
#endif
.globl __socket
@@ -105,4 +109,6 @@
END (__socket)
+#ifndef NO_WEAK_ALIAS
weak_alias (__socket, socket)
+#endif
Reply to: