Subject: Re: Uhm. Is this a feature?
From: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
Date: 05/28/2000 12:37:35
In message <200005281700.MAA01713@guild.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writes:
>In case it's unclear, this message came from any dynamically loaded
>executable. libc.so.12.61 is apparently not what I want. :)
Okay, now I'm really confused. On my i386 laptop, libc.so is .12.61, and has
an undefined reference to mainprog_obj, and works fine. On my Alpha, this
isn't okay. When I 'nm' a functional executable, I find a "mainprog_obj", but
I can't tell where it came from; it's not in any libraries or anything.
It looks like a large portion of my problem may just be that some of my
userland utils are out of date. Still, I don't think a new rev of libc.12
should have an undefined reference to a symbol that it can apparently be
missing from binaries which work with an earlier rev of libc.12.
Unfortunately, /usr/bin's executables are all stripped, so nm won't tell me
much about them. My instinct, at this point, is to just rebuild all the
executables I can, and then see if the new /usr/lib works. Curiously, most of
my userland is dated October, but my /usr/lib is dated January; apparently a
"make build" failed back then. :) (Hmm. That may not be it; on my i386
system, I have an August 1999 executable with a __mainprog_obj.)
Anyone else seen anything like this, or have some free clues for me on what
mainprog_obj is, and why I need it?