3946 2007-01-30 23:26:00 +0000 Weak definitions aren't so weak 2007-01-31 01:06:15 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified glibc libc 2.3.6 All All RESOLVED INVALID P2 normal --- 1 samuel.thibault drepper.fsp glibc-bugs 14754 samuel.thibault 2007-01-30 23:26:46 +0000 Attached is a testcase for weak references: two libraries define the safe symbol f, one as a weak definition, the other as a strong definition, and a program calls it. When run with ld-linux 2.3.6 and 2.5, the link order matters, while with ld-linux 2.2.5, the strong definition always wins. I would have expected to always get the 2.2.5's "strong always wins" behavior (and that's what I can read when googling), is there a reason for 2.3.6 and above to behave differently? (I can't see what weak definitions can be used for in such case). 14755 1527 samuel.thibault 2007-01-30 23:27:14 +0000 Created attachment 1527 weak definitions testcase 14756 drepper.fsp 2007-01-31 01:06:15 +0000 Weak definition only and exclusively have a meaning for static archives. Old glibc versions mistakenly implemented it for dynamic linking, too. This is now not the default anymore. Broken code an use LD_DYNAMIC_WEAK. 1527 2007-01-30 23:27:00 +0000 2007-01-30 23:27:14 +0000 weak definitions testcase test.tgz application/octet-stream 455 samuel.thibault H4sIAL7Sv0UAA+2XW0vDMBiGd7v8io85oQXXNe1iYU5x4oXCBBFvBKFkXeeCXTuaVBHxv5t0Y07x eNEq8j0XPaRvvh7ok6ZqvuhKlWfpjRM1KsLV7PZ6Zk0D5m6uSyjzG9RlLAgYpaadegH1GuBWdUGb FFLxHKAh+fzhs5yaiTEvElXHNdXIlkijpJjEMJBqIjJndkDuMjGBqWVDGHKlcjEuVByGlsUTwaXV kqoYt2zb3iP6ySkRgUgVmEbLdLThkTQXuW6bmqh5sa7Tlg4/kd++VeQdlPb/Pua31dn/Hf93N/xn xn/fZ+h/HfzAf/Oa7Px8EDDdcAj4qxj/F3lW4df/a/9dfWztvx+U/jOK/teB8XbORfrirTZ/jzTz WBV5Ci5a+78x/p/x23gqkriqc3zlvx+wtf9ebzn/d130vw54kvRBxVLRcumR5ug4HJ0eXQwvrsLz 4eXJvgNOtwx8fMgjpEz0YfkpgUSMVz+VMjM75QxTZqR5E0XQHkAng/YhdEYOdJJlUG+Y0LKQt1lo 1fdVzXcLmeC6HiE6v62jfdh2ord5OeN5PMGBDUEQBEEQBEEQBEEQBEEQBEGQ/8gzv3GNEAAoAAA=