At Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:48:14 -0600,
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > reassign 179781 glibc
> Bug#179781: dcgui: relocation error: /usr/bin/dcgui: undefined symbol:
> __fixunsdfdi
> Bug#180330: libc6, relocation error (dcgui)
> Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.2' to `glibc'.
>
> > severity 179781 serious
> Bug#179781: dcgui: relocation error: /usr/bin/dcgui: undefined symbol:
> __fixunsdfdi
> Bug#180330: libc6, relocation error (dcgui)
> Severity set to `serious'.
>
> > merge 179781 178645
> Bug#178645: glibc: needs to export __umoddi3 et al. on sparc
> Bug#179781: dcgui: relocation error: /usr/bin/dcgui: undefined symbol:
> __fixunsdfdi
> Mismatch - only Bugs in same state can be merged:
> Values for `package' don't match:
> #178645 has `libc6';
> #179781 has `glibc'
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why #179781 is glibc bug?
#179781 says that this bug forcuses __fixunsdfdi and __fixunssfdi are
appeared as .hidden attribute functions. Please test below code
main()
{
unsigned long long a;
double b;
a=b;
}
"gcc -S abovecode.c" says there is "__fixunsdfdi .hidden attribute".
I heard libgcc-compat for i386 was needed for the current debian-glibc,
but is this libgcc-compat patch resolves #179781 __fixunsdfdi .hidden
attribute problem?
Woody gcc-2.95.4 with libc6 2.2.5-11.2 output '.globl __cmpdi2'
instead of '.globl __fixunsdfdi', and this symbol is ok to resolve on
the current sid debian environment (so we can run such binaries).
Another question is: which symbols should we add for i386 libgcc-compat?
Please lead/explain to me...
Regards,
-- gotom
