Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:57:23AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:25:23PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote: >> > >> 4. Probably ld-linux.so itself should not segfault no matter what. >> >> > Thank you very much for clarification. Yes, I did it wrong, and now the >> > program does start, but the (4) above holds, right? Therefore I still >> > think it's a bug in ld-linux.so, even though not an important one for me >> > anymore. >> >> No, I don't think (4) holds. This is one of the most performance >> critical programs on a Linux system; it assumes that the input files >> are somewhat valid. > > not to mention that if you put any random .so because of > LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the linker path and expect it to work properly > whatever happens, then well, you're profoundly mistaken IMHO.
Sorry, but I did not expect random crap called something.so to work properly, -- I just expected ld-linux.so *itself* not to segfault. Maybe I'm indeed mistaken believing that program segfault is *always* bug. Though if you guys insist ld-linux.so segfault is not a bug, I can cope with it, I think. -- Sergei. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
