Subject: Re: Uhm. Is this a feature?
To: <>
From: Peter Seebach <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/28/2000 12:37:35
In message <>, Peter Seebach writes:
>In case it's unclear, this message came from any dynamically loaded
>executable. is apparently not what I want.  :)

Okay, now I'm really confused.  On my i386 laptop, 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userland utils are out of date.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?