This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Support for smaller glibc
"H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> writes:
> Last time when I checked, glibc 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 use the same soname.
> glibc 2.1 doesn't have all functions in 2.2. But I can compile under
> glibc 2.2 and run against glibc 2.1 as long as I don't use those new
> functions in glibc 2.2.
If you mark a binary as compliant with 2.2 it is assumed that all
symbols for glibc 2.2 are available. That's the one test you do. If
you now have a stripped version of the .so file with the GLIBC_2.2
version you get a false positive and applications crash.
--
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------