[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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".


War isn't a good life, but it's life.
		-- Kirk, "A Private Little War", stardate 4211.8

Reply to: