linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: insmod problems

To: Michael Shmulevich <michaels@jungo.com>
Subject: Re: insmod problems
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:46:39 -0300
Cc: Shay Deloya <shay@jungo.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <3AFA56F8.9090504@jungo.com>; from michaels@jungo.com on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:53:12AM +0300
References: <01050619134301.01140@athena.home.krftech.com> <20010508234036.A1216@bacchus.dhis.org> <3AFA56F8.9090504@jungo.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:53:12AM +0300, Michael Shmulevich wrote:

> On the same topic: same source (!!) 'insmod' executable compiled with 
> new (2.10) binutils doesn't exibit such relocation problem.
> 
> What may be causing 'insmod' to be dependant on binutils which compile 
> it? The module *.o is exactly same as it was before.

Without further explanation this one just sounds bizarre for now.

There always have been differences between the code generated by binutils
in the various versions; the resulting changes may result in different
behaviour of a broken programs.  These are fun to debug to say the least.
The other possibility would be binutils bugs but I'm not aware of one
with the effect you described.

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>