[lsb-discuss] Final detail

[Gordon.Schumacher at seagate.com]

"Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote on 06/26/2007 09:05:11
PM:

# We always link libc_nonshared.a because glibc does the same
# (well, of course the reason is more detailed than that :-).
# Haven't run into this particular permutation of the stack
# protector stuff yet, and we'll have to do some kind of dance
# to work around it.

This may be naive, but is it possible to define a function
named _stack_chk_fail with the correct prototype that simply
does something like "return true"?

I am clearly not understanding how the libc versioning thing
works in LSB, if it is linking against my system's libc.  :)
Somehow I thought that LSB had its own "old" version of libc
to link against...