Re: [rfc] Clarify shared library warning

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:10:48PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> It is, but messages to users don't need such mathematical rigour.  I
> imagine some users won't immediately realize that ``wrong library''
> might mean libc.so.6 instead of libc.so.7; ``version mismatch'' goes a
> long way towards spelling out that possibility, IMO.

That's not the problem here anyway; it's one copy of libc.so.6 versus
another copy of libc.so.6 from somewhere else.  If they were actually
different SONAMEs, we wouldn't ever have loaded it.

This has definitely become a bikeshed discussion, however.  I wish we
could spend less time editing one-line patches.

Does anyone dislike this version?  If not, I will commit it, and
someone can expand on it in the manual if necessary (probably with a
reference to solib-absolute-prefix).

warning: .dynamic section for "/lib/libc.so.6" is not at the expected
address (wrong library or version mismatch?)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery