On 10/04/2010 01:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli wrote:

> Do you have any idea what may be causing this?

Do you get the same problem if you invoke /usr/bin/ld.bfd instead of just "ld"?

I'm guessing that you're hitting ld.gold by default and it's behaving slightly
differently than the old binutils linker did.

--
Peter

Obviously, a major malfunction has occurred.
-- Steve Nesbitt, voice of Mission Control, January 28, 1986

01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789 012345678901234567890123456789
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 01:48:53PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 01:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
> > Do you have any idea what may be causing this?
>
> Do you get the same problem if you invoke /usr/bin/ld.bfd instead of just "ld"?

Yes.

$ ld -o libccheck.so -lc -shared && ldd libccheck.so
not a dynamic executable
$ /usr/bin/ld.bfd -o libccheck.so -lc -shared && ldd libccheck.so
not a dynamic executable

Both generated files are identical.

I also checked and /etc/alternatives/ld points to ld.bfd.


> I'm guessing that you're hitting ld.gold by default and it's behaving slightly
> differently than the old binutils linker did.

Actually, using ld.gold by hand complains about -lc and doesn't even link.

Thanks,
Alberto

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

File a glibc bug.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> File a glibc bug.

Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?)

Thanks,
Alberto

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli
<albertito@blitiri.com.ar> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> File a glibc bug.
>
> Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?)
>

Upstream and link to upstream bug in fedora bug tracker.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > File a glibc bug.
>
> Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?)

Both doesn't hurt, but you can just file in Fedora and let the
package maintainer handle escalating it.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:15:26PM +0000, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli
> <albertito@blitiri.com.ar> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >> File a glibc bug.
> >
> > Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?)
> >
>
> Upstream and link to upstream bug in fedora bug tracker.

I tried upstream but hit a bugzilla error, so I filed it in the Fedora
bug tracker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640154.

The upstream bugzilla error ("No bug status is available on bug
creation. Please report the problem to dberlin@gcc.gnu.org") has been
reported as well.

Thanks a lot,
Alberto

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel