ldd regression in F14B

[Alberto Bertogli]

Hi!

I installed F14B on a 64-bit VM (kvm) to give it a try, and see if some
projects worked fine on it.

One didn't, and while debugging the issue, I found what I believe is a
regression in ldd. That is, it used to work on F13, but now it doesn't.

I asked on #fedora if I should file a bug and they suggested me to ask
here first.


The issue is very easy to reproduce, just run:

	ld -o libccheck.so -lc -shared

to create an "empty" shared library linked with libc, and then:

	ldd libccheck.so


This is what fails, but used to work. It says "not a dynamic
executable", and I expected it to emit the normal library dependency
list.

This same experiment works on Debian testing and Ubuntu 10.04.

I also copied the .so built in F14B to an Ubuntu install and ran ldd on
it. It worked as expected, so it is likely that this is an ldd issue and
not an ld one.


Do you have any idea what may be causing this?

Let me know if you need any additional information. If there is anything
you want me to do, test or debug, I'd be glad to.

I'll try to build ldd from source and see if I can find anything else.

Thanks a lot,
		Alberto

[Peter Jones]

On 10/04/2010 01:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli wrote:

>  Do you have any idea what may be causing this? 
Do you get the same problem if you invoke /usr/bin/ld.bfd instead of just "ld"?

I'm guessing that you're hitting ld.gold by default and it's behaving
slightly
differently than the old binutils linker did.

-- 
        Peter

Obviously, a major malfunction has occurred.
		-- Steve Nesbitt, voice of Mission Control, January 28, 1986

01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789

[Alberto Bertogli]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 01:48:53PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
>  On 10/04/2010 01:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
>  > Do you have any idea what may be causing this?
>  
>  Do you get the same problem if you invoke /usr/bin/ld.bfd instead of just "ld"?
Yes.

$ ld -o libccheck.so -lc -shared && ldd libccheck.so
        not a dynamic executable
$ /usr/bin/ld.bfd -o libccheck.so -lc -shared && ldd libccheck.so
        not a dynamic executable

Both generated files are identical.

I also checked and /etc/alternatives/ld points to ld.bfd.


>  I'm guessing that you're hitting ld.gold by default and
> it's behaving slightly
>  differently than the old binutils linker did. 
Actually, using ld.gold by hand complains about -lc and doesn't even link.

Thanks,
		Alberto

[Roland McGrath]

File a glibc bug.

[Alberto Bertogli]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
>  File a glibc bug. 
Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?)

Thanks,
		Alberto

[Mike Fedyk]

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli
<albertito(a)blitiri.com.ar&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > File a glibc bug.
>
>  Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?)
>  
Upstream and link to upstream bug in fedora bug tracker.

[Roland McGrath]

>  On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
>  > File a glibc bug.
>  
>  Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?) 
Both doesn't hurt, but you can just file in Fedora and let the
package maintainer handle escalating it.

[Alberto Bertogli]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:15:26PM +0000, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>  On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Alberto Bertogli
>  <albertito(a)blitiri.com.ar&gt; wrote:
>  > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
>  >> File a glibc bug.
>  >
>  > Upstream or in Fedora's bugzilla? (or both?)
>  >
>  
>  Upstream and link to upstream bug in fedora bug tracker. 
I tried upstream but hit a bugzilla error, so I filed it in the Fedora
bug tracker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640154.

The upstream bugzilla error ("No bug status is available on bug
creation. Please report the problem to dberlin(a)gcc.gnu.org&quot;) has been
reported as well.

Thanks a lot,
		Alberto