From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14121 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2006 15:18:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 14113 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2006 15:18:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:18:37 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GYOns-0003bx-OQ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:18:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andreas Schwab , brobecker@adacore.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Clarify shared library warning Message-ID: <20061013151828.GA13648@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Andreas Schwab , brobecker@adacore.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20061010213438.GC1059@adacore.com> <20061011133756.GB25164@nevyn.them.org> <9704.82.92.89.47.1160598745.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <20061011203928.GA9409@nevyn.them.org> <20061012055231.GG1059@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 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