[mythtv-users] Undefined symbol error when running CVS
Shawn
core at enodev.com
Thu Nov 11 22:03:38 UTC 2004
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 11:40 -0800, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> I believe "That link error crap" as you so eloquently put it, is CVS myth
> being built against 0.16 Myth libraries. It has nothing to do with the
> compiler. You're closer this time around with the (again eloquent) "binary
> incompatible shit lying around", since it is a library from 0.16 that isn't
> compatible with the latest CVS.
Here's the deal: If the myth program compile-time links successfully but
cannot run-time link successfully, it's binary incompatible, most likely
due to compiler or binutils. You may have written a document, but I'm
fairly certain you're wrong. When libraries are incompatible in such a
way as you say, one of a number of things happen:
1. The program fails to compile-time link due to trying to pass the
wrong number or type of arguments to a given function
2. The program fails to compile-time link due to trying to pass
seemingly compatibly structured data (type, number of args, etc)
but the data itself makes the function barf.
3. The function returns incompatible type and compile-time link
fails
4. The function returns seemingly compatibly structured data (type,
etc) but the data itself makes the calling code barf.
In other words, it probably won't compile, but if it does, it's image
will likely at least load into memory after /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is done,
and at some point it will probably segfault.
I'm getting weary of thinly veiled insults about how I speak, after
having neither insulted you, nor your methods. Do you speak to everyone
this way?
> Because I know they guy's system a helluva lot better than you do. He put it
> together following a document *I* wrote, thank you. And Isaac most definitely
> has a right to act superior, given the fact he's the lead developer on the
> project.
You and Isaac are of course both superior in your areas of expertise.
You are not, however, infallible or beyond question, especially when you
assert superiority apparently outside of your depth. I'll admit I may be
wrong despite my years and experience, and that appears to be the
difference between you and I.
> > I've fought with c++ compiles for 9 years as an admin and a user
> > on every popular linux distribution since 95.
>
> Half the people on this list have done the same.
I'm sure they and many on the list are polite, too. I may have a VERY
informal way of speaking, but it is not insulting to the intended
recipient of my advice, much unlike your behavior.
> I say way off, because you don't understand the guy's system. Your initial
> supposition was that it was because he had something compiled with a
> different compiler on his system. You were closer with your follow-up.
I think you'll find that despite my mention of gcc 2.96, that my
assertions in general hold water, as supported by what I wrote above.
> > No, it would have led to the correct answer, showing runtime links to
> > libraries he did not intend to link to, like the RPMs that ought not be
> > there...
>
> I suppose he might have got there eventually.
And he would have understood what went wrong. THAT's helping someone.
Way off base indeed...
> > Different way of coming to the same conclusion.
> A much more direct way, and much easier for non-dev types to understand.
It feels good for non-dev types when they get the ah-hahh feeling too,
you know. Most non-dev folks only get frustrated because they don't
understand.
> I'm going to preemptively remove myself from this thread now.
I didn't start the impoliteness, nor have I continued it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20041111/77ee814d/attachment.pgp
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list