Re: cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/patches by gotom
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:18:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:01:09PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 04:07:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > As far as I can tell, it _isn't_ working.
> > > >
> > > > Right now, on 2.3.1-10, I get:
> > > > With /etc/ld.so.nohwcap Without
> > > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH uses hwcap! doesn't
> > > > Normal lib dirs uses hwcap! doesn't
> > > >
> > > > Try it yourself with strace. If you want to see the libraries searched
> > > > be sure to remove /etc/ld.so.cache.
> > >
> > > That pretty much makes it a definite then :)
> > >
> > > Please change the logic to correctly use access()?
> >
> > I still want to figure out how all those VIA C3 users were having
> > problems by getting i686 libraries. Did some version of glibc leave
> > /etc/ld.so.nohwcap around?
>
> I believe Alan Cox already explained this. Even with this bug and
> nohwcap left around, it would not force the use of libraries, but merely
> allow the use of optimized libraries.
>
> Chase that bug someplace else, like betweent he kernel and libc.
No, Ben, you misunderstand me.
The problem they were reporting can only be triggered if they were
getting an optimized version of the SSL library, i.e. the linker was
checking hwcap and searching /usr/lib/i686. But the patch was
disabling searching that dir. So what gives?
I'm not going to touch the patch until I get a handle on that.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: