Bug in module loading system on x86-64?
anderson at netsweng.com
Sat Oct 2 08:21:39 PDT 2004
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> Right, that could be part of the problem. Although it looked like the
>> symbol itself was not resolved properly (but I am not familiar with how
>> symbols are resolved with the X loaders).
> I would not be surprised at all if the elfloader code was not 64-bit clean.
In general, the elfloader is 64-bit clean. It has been used on other
64-bit platforms for several years. I havent looked closely at the
x86_64 specific code (or at any X modules built built on an x86_64), so
it is possible there is a 64-bit uncleanness in just that part of the
code. It's not entirely impossible (though not likely) that there is a bug
in binutils too. One thing that is unusual, is that the elfloader is
processing relocatable objects, and not shared objects. This is something
that is not normally done except by ld, so if there is a bug in how
the objects get produced (ie using 32 relocations instead of 64 bit),
nothing else would have come across this.
> To me that sounds like a strong motivation to just use dlloader instead.
Do we really need any more excuses? It seems that people have already
made up their mind wether or not they have understood the implmentation
of either of the choices.
Stuart R. Anderson anderson at netsweng.com
Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149: 0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149
More information about the xorg