This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: A patch for default version and archive


On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:49:40PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> writes:
> 
> > Let's just address binutils here. The symbol versioning should always
> > be used with care regardless if my patch is checked in or not. My
> > point is the current linker doesn't do what is expected. If people
> > think symbol versioning in an archive is desirable, this small
> > problem certainly won't stop them.
> 
> Versioning has no place in archives.  Nobody would use it this way if
> this stupid idea would be shot down immediately.  You are
> implementing, as I've described, something which can already be done
> by other means.  And you do this by adding yet more confusion to the
> already difficult versioning handling.
> 

That is one opinion and you are talking about my glibc proposal again,
which has nothing to do with my binutils patch.  Please don't drag it
into the binutils discussion. Thanks.

As it stands now, when the linker sees a foo@@ver1 in an archive, it
will only check foo. My patch will add the checking to foo@ver1. It is
not an unexpected behavior since the linker will resolve references of
foo@ver1 to foo@@ver1. Please tell me what is wrong with it. If you
think it is wrong, please show me a testcase. You may not agree with
my glibc proposal. That is fine. But it has nothing to do with
binutils.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@valinux.com)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]