Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB83431FAF for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:53:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tIXRyTkBkHnC for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36A99431FAE for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X09Aa-0004Kw-Jh; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:52:52 -0300 Received: (nullmailer pid 8507 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:52:49 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Thomas Klausner Subject: Re: notmuch-0.16: realpath() compatibility issue; clang visibility problem In-Reply-To: <87a98zho9y.fsf@zancas.localnet> References: <20140103214735.GG27614@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> <87ob0c6p0e.fsf@zancas.localnet> <20140408123312.GZ5053@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> <87a98zho9y.fsf@zancas.localnet> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:52:49 -0300 Message-ID: <87zjgzg7dq.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Notmuch list X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:53:01 -0000 David Bremner writes: > Is it correct that the statically linked version (notmuch) worked OK but > the dynamically linked version (notmuch-shared) failed? That's > consistent with what I observe on Debian, it's just that here the > dynamically linked version falls back on the canonicalize_file_name in > glibc, hiding the error. Actually I'm wrong about this part. or at least I don't know how to test this on a glibc based system. My suggested test with nm is bogus, since all symbols from libnotmuch.so will show up the same way. d