[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