Re: Incorrect dependency on GLIBC_PRIVATE symbol, who to blame?

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 10/11/2009 11:41 AM, Kent Boortz wrote:
>   (F) The linker, it should know about GLIBC_PRIVATE, and search for
>       non private occurrences first, then if not found do another scan
>       for private ones?

No, GLIBC_PRIVATE is not very different from ABC_XYZ from the linker's 
point-of-view. :-)

>  (A) Red Hat, the "/usr/lib/libunwind.la" should not have ' -lc -lgcc'
>      as a dependency, those are implicit and should never be in a
>      ".la", except maybe when building the compiler/linker itself?

Maybe.  Does hacking the libunwind.la fix it?

>  (C) Intel, SuSE has the exact same content of "libunwind.la", but
>      'postdeps' contains a "-lm" before "-lc", so should icc/icpc "-v"
>      on Red Hat?

You accidentally a part of the sentence, but anyway I do not think 
sprinkling -lm's is the right solution.

>  (G) Linux system devs, for defining that symbols twice?

That's very tricky indeed, but I think that part is fine as long as -lc 
is never given on the command line.

Paolo