[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glibc broken
From: |
Mark Kettenis |
Subject: |
Re: glibc broken |
Date: |
Wed, 23 May 2001 13:30:39 +0200 (MET DST) |
From: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:38:18 +0200
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:04:54PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> It is important to be clear about what works and what doesn't:
>
> * statically linked user programs
> * statically linked user programs that use cthreads
I don't see how a statically linked program can be affected by a glibc
upgrade. Note that I didn't recompile the Hurd with the new glibc.
It's likely to be a problem in the libc or ld.so initialization code,
in particar the argument/environment vector munging that we do at
various stages. And those things are done differently if a program is
started directly by Mach or serverboot or via the exec server.
The dates Marcus mentions make the following change a bit suspect:
2001-03-24 Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
* sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/init-first.c: Include <assert.h>.
(_dl_argv): Declare.
(init) [SHARED]: Readjust _dl_argv if we switched to a new stack.
I'm fairly sure things were working OK on my machine, but I can
remember problems similar to the ones Marcus is observing when working
on that patch. Perhaps the assertion in
sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/init-first.c:init() is failing?
- glibc broken, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/22
- Re: glibc broken, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/22
- Re: glibc broken, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/23
- Re: glibc broken,
Mark Kettenis <=
- Re: glibc broken, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/23
- Re: glibc broken, Mark Kettenis, 2001/05/24
- Re: glibc broken, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/27
- Re: glibc broken, Mark Kettenis, 2001/05/27
- Re: glibc broken, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/27
- Re: glibc broken, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/25
Re: glibc broken, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/23