[PATCH] include/obstack.h: do not hide _obstack_newchunk

Anthony G. Basile basile at opensource.dyc.edu
Sun Jun 23 21:25:37 UTC 2013


On 06/23/2013 02:16 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 23 June 2013 18:14:08 "Anthony G. Basile" <basile at opensource.dyc.edu>
> wrote:
>> From: "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness at gentoo.org>
>>
>> Programs using obstacks, like the suite of utilities provided by
>> coreutils, need _obstack_newchunk so we unhide the symbol.
>
> Eh, that sounds pretty broken. Are you sure this is the right thing to
> do? They should most likely obstack_*grow() instead.
>
> Please fix coreutils instead, or better yet, use Busybox.
> Thanks,


Hi Bernhard,

Given what _obstack_newchunk does, I agree with you, but I was surprised 
to see that the following packages all have it:

	sys-apps/coreutils
	sys-apps/grep
	sys-apps/sed
	app-arch/tar

	sys-devel/binutils
	sys-devel/gcc
	sys-devel/gdb
	sys-devel/bison
	sys-devel/m4
	sys-devel/gettext

(This is in gentoo's <cat>/<pkg> format.) Probably more, but I'm just 
looking at a minimal system.  Multiple programs in each package have 
something like this:

~ # readelf -s /bin/grep | grep _obstack_newchunk

99: 0000000000000000     0 FUNC    GLOBAL DEFAULT  UND 
_obstack_newchunk at GLIBC_2.2.5 (3)


And you if you look in glibc you find:

# readelf -s /lib64/libc.so.6 | grep _obstack_newchunk

1343: 0000000000084fa0   376 FUNC    GLOBAL DEFAULT   12 
_obstack_newchunk@@GLIBC_2.2.5


Also we had that _obstack_newchunk visible before the recent obstack 
commits, so ???

Let me do some poking around and see what's going on.


-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197


More information about the uClibc mailing list