Re: Solaris patches and results

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 01:18:05PM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> 
> Hmm. Interesting. Although this seems scary, I think this is the right 
> approach.

Now you know why the thought of suggesting that these go back into glibc
frightens me.  :-)


> These results are really weird. The shared executables pass, but the 
> statically-linked ones are not correct? I'd think they'd both fail.
> 
> (I'm seeing this on linux as well--it appears to be related to 
> -Wl,--gc-sections, but it's not anything obvious.) 

I should have some time tomorrow to turn off the sectioning flags and run
them again.  Hadn't thought about the sections.


-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.