Frequently Asked Question on GNU C Library As every FAQ this one also tries to answer the questions the user might when using the pacakge. Please make sure you read this before sending questions/bug reports to the maintainers. The GNU C Library is very complex. The building process exploits the features available in tools generally available. But many things can only be done using GNU tools. Also the code is sometimes hard to understand because it has to be portable but on the other hand must be fast. But you need not understand the details to use GNU C Library. This will only be necessary if you intend to contribute or change it. If you have any question which you think might be worth answered in this document let me know. --drepper@cygnus.com ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q1] ``What systems the GNU C Library runs on?'' [Q2] ``What compiler do I need to translate GNU libc?'' [Q3] ``When starting make I get only errors messages. What's wrong?'' [Q4] ``After I changed configure.in I get `Autoconf version X.Y. or higher is required for this script'. What can I do?'' [Q5] ``Do I need a special linker or archiver?'' [Q6] ``Do I need some more things to compile GNU C Library?'' [Q7] ``When I run `nm libc.so|grep " U "' on the produced library I still find unresolved symbols? Can this be ok?'' [Q8] ``I expect GNU libc to be 100% source code compatible with the old Linux based GNU libc. Why isn't it like this?'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q1] ``What systems the GNU C Library runs on?'' [A1] {UD} This is difficult to answer. The file `README' lists the architectures GNU libc is known to run *at some time*. This does not mean that it still can be compiled and run on them in the moment. The systems glibc is known to work on in the moment and most probably in the future are: *-*-gnu GNU Hurd i[3456]86-*-linux Linux-2.0 on Intel Other Linux platforms are also on the way to be supported but I need some success reports first. If you have a system not listed above (or in the `README' file) and you are really interested in porting it, contact Roland McGrath or Ulrich Drepper ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q2] ``What compiler do I need to translate GNU libc?'' [A2] {UD} It is (almost) impossible to compile GNU C Library using a different compiler than GNU CC. A lot of extensions of GNU CC are used to increase the portability and speed. But this does not mean you have to use GNU CC for using the GNU C Library. In fact you should be able to use the native C compiler because the success only depends on the binutils: the linker and archiver. The GNU CC is found like all other GNU packages on ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu or better one of the many mirrors. You always should try to use the latest official release. Older versions might not have all the features GNU libc could use. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q3] ``When starting make I get only errors messages. What's wrong?'' [A3] {UD} You definitely need GNU make to translate GNU libc. No other make program has the needed functionality. Versions before 3.74 have bugs which prevent correct execution so you should upgrade to the latest version before starting the compilation. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q4] ``After I changed configure.in I get `Autoconf version X.Y. or higher is required for this script'. What can I do?'' [A4] {UD} You have to get the specified autoconf version (or a later) from your favourite mirror of prep.ai.mit.edu. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q5] ``Do I need a special linker or archiver?'' [A5] {UD} If your native versions are not too buggy you can work with them. But GNU libc works best with GNU binutils. On systems where the native linker does not support weak symbols you will not get a really ISO C compliant C library. Generally speaking you should use the GNU binutils if they provide at least the same functionality as your system's tools. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q6] ``Do I need some more things to compile GNU C Library?'' [A6] {UD} Yes, there are some more :-). * lots of diskspace (for i386-linux this means, e.g., ~70MB) You should avoid compiling on a NFS mounted device. This is very slow. * plenty of time (approx 1h for i386-linux on i586@133 or 2.5h or i486@66). If you have some more interested measurements let me know. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q7] ``When I run `nm libc.so|grep " U "' on the produced library I still find unresolved symbols? Can this be ok?'' [A7] {UD} Yes, this is ok. There can be several kinds of unresolved symbols: * magic symbols automatically generated by the linker. Names are often like __start_* and __stop_*- * symbols resolved by using libgcc.a (__udivdi3, __umoddi3, or similar) * weak symbols, which need not be resolved at all (currently fabs among others; this gets resolved if the program is linked against libm, too.) Generally, you should make sure you find a real program which produces errors while linking. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q8] ``I expect GNU libc to be 100% source code compatible with the old Linux based GNU libc. Why isn't it like this?'' [A8] {DMT} Not every extension in Linux libc's history was well thought. In fact it had a lot of problems with standard compliance and cleanliness. With the introduction of a new version number these errors now can be corrected. The following list shows a list of the know source code incompatibilities. * _GNU_SOURCE: glibc does not automatically define _GNU_SOURCE. Thus, if a program depends on GNU extensions, it is necessary to compile it with C compiler option -D_GNU_SOURCE. This difference normally mainfests itself in the form of missing prototypes and/or data type definitions. Thus, if you get such errors, the first thing you should do is grep the header files in /usr/include and /usr/include/sys to check whether the functions are really missing or whether it is just necessary to add a define of _GNU_SOURCE. Similar comments apply to _BSD_SOURCE, _POSIX_SOURCE, _SVID_SOURCE etc (see /usr/include/features.h). * reboot(): GNU libc sanitizes the interface of reboot() to be more compatible with the interface used on other OSes. In particular, reboot() as implemented in glibc takes just one argument. This argument corresponds to the third argument of the Linux reboot system call. That is, a call of the form reboot(a, b, c) needs to be changed into reboot(c). * errno: If a program uses variable "errno", then it _must_ include header file . The old libc often (erroneously) declared this variable implicitly as a side-effect of including other libc header files. glibc is careful to avoid such namespace pollution, which, in turn, means that you really need to include the header files that you depend on. This difference normally manifests itself in the form of the compiler complaining about the references of the undeclared symbol "errno". * Linux-specific syscalls: All Linux system calls now have appropriate library wrappers and corresponding declarations in various header files. This is because the syscall() macro that was traditionally used to work around missing syscall wrappers are inherently non-portable and error-prone. The following tables lists all the new syscall stubs, the header-file declaring their interface and the system call name. syscall name: wrapper name: declaring header file: ------------- ------------- ---------------------- bdflush bdflush create_module create_module delete_module delete_module get_kernel_syms get_kernel_syms init_module init_module syslog ksyslog_ctl To get the Linux-specific declarations in , you'll need to define C pre-processor macro _LINUX_SOURCE during compilation. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Answers were given by: {UD} Ulrich Drepper, {DMT} David Mosberger-Tang, Local Variables: mode:text End: