From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23254 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2004 15:39:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23166 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2004 15:39:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (209.128.65.135) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 11 Jun 2004 15:39:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 26744 invoked by uid 10); 11 Jun 2004 15:39:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 11351 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2004 15:39:35 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: fergal@esatclear.ie, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Fergal Daly , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent core dump for multiple def symbols References: <20040611144526.GF16613@dyn.fergaldaly.com> <20040611145341.GA24143@nevyn.them.org> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040611145341.GA24143@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > It seems obvious and correct to me. Is multiple_definition a recent > callback or did I just miss it when I wrote simple.c? [I won't even > ask how you have a shared library with multiple definitions of a > dynamic symbol.] multiple_definition is not a recent callback. It's been there from the start. I agree that for it to be called in this scenario is odd. Ian