Bug#197668: Bug#197673: Acknowledgement (libc6: __ctype_b_loc is not properly exported)
GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp> writes:
> At 16 Jun 2003 22:46:34 -0600,
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > It compiles fine here. I suspect you have a bad copy of libc or
> > > binutils somewhere in your system; make sure it's using the right
> > > headers, libraries, and linker please.
> >
> > Hmm. How weird.... I am looking.
> >
> > Ok. I have tracked it down and I'm not certain what to grumble at.
> > The tip off was checking the libraries gcc -print-search-dirs reported.
> >
> > I had some libraries for a home spun x86-64 cross compiler installed
> > in i386-linux. gcc was search in there and finding an old copy of glibc-2.2
> > Which explains why the new symbols were not found.
> >
> > I will agree that i386-linux was not the best name for a cross
> > compiler directory. But why was that being searched before lib?
>
> I guess your old copy is derived from SuSE's or something?
Yes. The problematic bit was simply that I had old libraries in there,
and I did not expect gcc to start prefering those during the link
step, especially for dynamically linked libraries. I did not even
expect gcc to be searching there.
I would use a pure debian version if I could. The problem that triggered
this was that gcc when built for x86-64 builds both a 32bit and a 64bit compiler
so it needed a set of 32bit libraries to match the 64bit libraries I had installed
in x86_64-linux.
> x86-64 in
> debian is under development, so it's not a "bug", I think. (I don't
> know well, but I guess x86-64 might be designed to be capable for both
> ia32 and amd64).
>
> BTW, this bug seemed being fixed, so could I close it?
The problem I reported is resolved, so I see no problem with closing
the report.
If there is a bug left it is the fact that gcc and ld.so by default use
a different selection criteria for library directories. Would it be
reasonable to file a new low priority bug against gcc and libc?
Since i386-linux is rarely used I don't expect this to seen two often but
I obviously tripped over it.
Eric
Reply to: