FWD: Re: [Linux-ia64] latest glibc snapshot does not build on ia64?
i'll try this later....
randolph
----- Forwarded message from Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> -----
To: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>
Cc: "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann@intel.com>,
linux-ia64@linuxia64.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] latest glibc snapshot does not build on ia64?
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:00:41 +0200
Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org> writes:
|> In reference to a message from Wichmann, Mats D, dated Sep 03:
|> >
|> > > Haven't dug into this too much yet; wanted to see if anyone else has
|> > > seen this?
|> >
|> > Yup.
|> >
|> > There's a short glibc patch which takes care of this (should be on the
|> > Debian lists, else I can mail it to you once I get my machine back up).
|> > It's an "unofficial" patch because it's felt the problem really lies
|> > with binutils and not glibc, so it's not in glibc cvs. The change
|> > is to dl-machine.h if it helps search...
|>
|> there was a IA64_RELOC_NONE patch, but in a different area of glibc...
|> looks like we just hit it again at a different spot now...
It's actually the same spot, but the context has changed a bit. Here is
an updated patch:
Index: dl-machine.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/glibc/libc/sysdeps/ia64/dl-machine.h,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -p -a -u -p -a -r1.20 dl-machine.h
--- dl-machine.h 6 Apr 2002 00:33:23 -0000 1.20
+++ dl-machine.h 3 Sep 2002 18:58:59 -0000
@@ -546,12 +546,11 @@ elf_machine_rela (struct link_map *map,
# endif
value += map->l_addr;
}
-# ifndef RTLD_BOOTSTRAP
- else if (r_type == R_IA64_NONE)
- return;
-# endif
else
#endif
+ if (r_type == R_IA64_NONE)
+ return;
+ else
{
struct link_map *sym_map;
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 N?rnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
----- End forwarded message -----
Reply to: