This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Duplicate data objects in shared libraries
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>
- Cc: drepper at redhat dot com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:30:10 -0700
- Subject: Re: Duplicate data objects in shared libraries
- References: <m3it5kic36.fsf@mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de> <02cd01c1ff2e$83dfb820$6501a8c0@boostconsulting.com> <m3u1p46igs.fsf@mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de> <wvly9efpflo.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com> <05cc01c20000$4324f250$6501a8c0@boostconsulting.com> <wvly9eeol24.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com> <20020520095715.A11611@lucon.org> <wvlwutymw28.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com> <20020521173002.A8353@lucon.org> <m3off8znsv.fsf@mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:42:08AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
>
> > I took a look. When I move C.so in front of A.so in the scope of A.so
> > if C.so is on the DT_NEEDED list of A.so and is loaded in memory
> > already, this will work. However, there are a few testcases in
> > glibc which assume otherwise. I can't make both to work at the same
> > time. Does anyone have some ideas?
>
> Can you report what those test cases are, and judge whether they are
> "reasonable"?
I sent Ulrich a small testcase. I assume he will look into it.
Personally, I believe it is a Linux bug, which leads to the same
symbol having different values in one address space from dlopen.
That is a very tricky problem. Ulrich, do you want me to send
a glibc testcase patch? I can think of a few interesting ones.
H.J.