<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><!-- generator="b2evolution/2.4.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Diego Petten - Latest comments on Another linking test</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gentoo.org/flameeyes?disp=comments</link>
		<description></description>
		<language>en-US</language>
		<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
		<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://b2evolution.net/?v=2.4.5"/>
		<ttl>60</ttl>
				<item>
			<title>In response to: Another linking test</title>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Neil Cathey [Visitor]</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">c2731@http://blogs.gentoo.org/</guid>
			<description>I also had a problem where X wouldn't start when compiled with -Wl,-Bdirect and LD_BIND_DIRECT=1 was set.  I discovered that if I recompile x11-libs/libXfont without -Wl,-Bdirect, X starts fine with LD_BIND_DIRECT=1.  My whole system has now been compiled with -Wl,-Bdirect (except for libXfont).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I reported my findings in Bug #114008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neil</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I also had a problem where X wouldn't start when compiled with -Wl,-Bdirect and LD_BIND_DIRECT=1 was set.  I discovered that if I recompile x11-libs/libXfont without -Wl,-Bdirect, X starts fine with LD_BIND_DIRECT=1.  My whole system has now been compiled with -Wl,-Bdirect (except for libXfont).<br />
<br />
I reported my findings in Bug #114008.<br />
<br />
Neil]]></content:encoded>
			<link>http://blogs.gentoo.org/flameeyes/2006/01/30/another_linking_test#c2731</link>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>In response to: Another linking test</title>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Diego Petten [Member]</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">c2716@http://blogs.gentoo.org/</guid>
			<description>I don't have binutils 2.16.1-r1 nor gcc 3.4.4, and the whole system is built with -Bdirect.&lt;br /&gt;
The problem might be a binutils bug or somewhere else, I'd rather stick in the safe side anyway.</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I don't have binutils 2.16.1-r1 nor gcc 3.4.4, and the whole system is built with -Bdirect.<br />
The problem might be a binutils bug or somewhere else, I'd rather stick in the safe side anyway.]]></content:encoded>
			<link>http://blogs.gentoo.org/flameeyes/2006/01/30/another_linking_test#c2716</link>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>In response to: Another linking test</title>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:04:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>StringCheesian [Visitor]</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">c2715@http://blogs.gentoo.org/</guid>
			<description>I reinstalled following &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-429276-highlight-conrad.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Conrad Install Guide&lt;/a&gt; (except with safer CFLAGS) and the problem disappeared (xorg 7.0 starts fine with LD_BIND_DIRECT set).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it could be caused by binutils-2.16.1-r1, or by gcc 3.4.4, or by having only some of your system compiled with -Bdirect.</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I reinstalled following <a href="http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-429276-highlight-conrad.html" rel="nofollow">the Conrad Install Guide</a> (except with safer CFLAGS) and the problem disappeared (xorg 7.0 starts fine with LD_BIND_DIRECT set).<br />
<br />
So it could be caused by binutils-2.16.1-r1, or by gcc 3.4.4, or by having only some of your system compiled with -Bdirect.]]></content:encoded>
			<link>http://blogs.gentoo.org/flameeyes/2006/01/30/another_linking_test#c2715</link>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
