[ILUG] glibc problem
Padraig Brady
padraig at antefacto.com
Thu Sep 20 19:07:31 IST 2001
Default RH7.1 install it works fine for me (gcc version 2.96).
Note I've glibc 2.2.2 also which gives the same nm output as
you have.
Padraig.
Dave Neary wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Has anyone else had issues with a RedHat glibc (2.2.2-10)? Mine doesn't
>seem to define atexit(3), or doesn't define it properly... I'm just
>wondering whether I've messed something up, or this is something I
>should tell redhat about - I haven't found anything in their errata.
>
>The following program shows it up, if the problem's there - this came
>about from upgrading my glibc from an older (2.1) glibc, so there may be
>confusion as to what's defining what.
>--- test_atexit.c ---
>#include <stdlib.h>
>#include <stdio.h>
>
>void my_exit(void)
>{
> printf("Exitting now.\n");
>}
>int main(void)
>{
> atexit(my_exit);
> return 0;
>}
>--- EOF ---
>
>nm /lib/i686/libc.so.6 | grep atexit
>gives
>00030420 T __cxa_atexit
>00030514 t __dyn_atexit
>00129b8c ? __elf_set___libc_atexit_element__cleanup__
>00129b8c a __start___libc_atexit
>00129b90 a __stop___libc_atexit
>0012c160 b added_atexit_handler.0
>00030514 T atexit at GLIBC_2.0
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I think the last line's the important one. Somehow it hasn't defined
>atexit, but only atexit at GLIBC_2.0 - I don't know what this all means -
>any of you have any idea? If there's something wrong here, there could
>be something wrong elsewhere that I haven't spotted, so I'd kind of like
>to figure it out :)
>
>Thanks for the help,
>Dave.
>
More information about the ILUG
mailing list