From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-45805-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7897 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2006 06:55:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 7874 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2006 06:55:30 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:55:27 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) 	id 1GXuTO-0005d9-2I; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:55:18 -0400
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
CC: drow@false.org, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20061012055231.GG1059@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker 	on Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:52:31 -0700)
Subject: Re: [rfc] Clarify shared library warning
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20061010145213.GA20993@nevyn.them.org> <uejtfkgia.fsf@gnu.org> <20061010213438.GC1059@adacore.com> <20061011133756.GB25164@nevyn.them.org> <9704.82.92.89.47.1160598745.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <20061011203928.GA9409@nevyn.them.org> <u1wpejgxf.fsf@gnu.org> <20061012055231.GG1059@adacore.com>
Message-Id: <E1GXuTO-0005d9-2I@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:55:00 -0000
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:52:31 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > This doesn't mention the problem with the library version, which to me
> > is a very important clue.  I think version mismatch is a much more
> > likely problem than a library mismatch.
> 
> But two libraries with the exact same version number may not necessarily
> be the same.

How about this, then:

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

> In any case, I agree with Mark that an addition to the manual is
> more important than trying to cover every possible sources for this
> discrepency in a highly skilfully crafted short message.

I agree, but many users don't bother to look up the message in the
manual, so I think we should make it as clear as possible.