[Buildroot] can't resolve symbol bcopy

Qiu Yu unicell at gmail.com
Thu Sep 21 13:33:38 UTC 2006

On 9/21/06, Bernhard Fischer <rep.nop at aon.at> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:34:24PM +0800, Qiu Yu wrote:
> >Hi, all
> >
> >Paid some effort, I finally got my first buildroot-made rootfs image for
> >mipsel platform, but this pleasure did't last long.
> >
> >When I mount it on my board, after kernel started, I got an error
> message:
> >"bin/sh" can't resolve symbol bcopy
> Either enable legacy support in uClibc (i wouldn't do this), or make
> sure that busybox doesn't contain bcopy which itself is flagged
> Same goes for bzero which, too, is deprecated and generates equal size
> to a plain memset with any reasonable version of gcc anyway.

I noticed that uClibc-0.9.28 does contain a bzero.o under libc/string, which
is produced by this rule (libc/string/Makefile):

$(MOBJ): $(MSRC)
        $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -DL_$* $< -c -o $*.o
        $(STRIPTOOL) -x -R .note -R .comment $*.o

-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs         -fno-strict-aliasing
-mips1  -fno-builtin -nostdinc -D_LIBC -I../../include -I.  -Os
-mno-split-addresses -isystem
-DNDEBUG -fPIC -DL_bcop        y wstring.c -c -o bcopy.o

and in wstring.c bzero() is simply implemented via memmove()

#ifdef L_bcopy

void bcopy(const void *s2, void *s1, size_t n)
#if 1
        memmove(s1, s2, n);

But....if that code means bcopy does implemented in uClibc, how to explain
my "can't resolve symbol bcopy " problem?  confused...

> That said, current busybox trunk doesn't contain bcopy, i don't have a
> 1.2 tarball at hand to see if it's erroneously used there.

I made a grep search under busybox-1.2.1 but found nothing

qiuyu at dsarge:~/buildroot/build_mipsel/busybox-1.2.1$ grep -nHr bcopy *
61:     grep -E -e
'\<(bcmp|bcopy|bzero|getwd|index|mktemp|rindex|utimes)\>[[:space:]]*\(' \

Only recently one instance of bzero was erroneously added to busybox:
> http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-September/024328.html
> If uClibc was cleaned up properly NOT to provide fallback defines behind
> your back for e.g. bzero, then you'd have seen a proper compile failure
> (there most likely was an error about a call to "(bcopy)(s,d,sz)"
> somewhere in your make output anyway...).
> >
> >I tried to google it, and only got this page "
> > http://mailman.uclinux.org/pipermail/uclinux-dev/2006-April/037797.html".
> I
> >contacted the guy who sent this message, and he did't find out the cause
> of
> >the problem. All he suggests me is to try different version, and maybe
> >change some compiler option.
> >
> >But...any body knows why and how to fix it? Please help me out and
> thanks!
> >
> >My buildroot configuration:
> >
> >Kernel Headers (Linux 2.4.31 kernel headers)       <-- I'm using Linux
> >2.4.17 to boot the board, can this be a problem?
> >Binutils Version (binutils 2.16.1)
> >GCC compiler Version (gcc 3.4.2)
> >uClibc-0.9.28
> >busybox-1.2.1
> >
> >--
> >Qiu, Yu
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >http://www.unibeing.net
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >_______________________________________________
> >buildroot mailing list
> >buildroot at uclibc.org
> >http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

Qiu, Yu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20060921/76d6fb9e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the buildroot mailing list