Re: A patch for default version and archive

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:33:49PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> writes:
> 
> > Please don't drag it into the binutils discussion.
> 
> I do not.
>  
> > As it stands now, when the linker sees a foo@@ver1 in an archive, it
> > will only check foo.
> 
> Right.  Since versioning information is not available in archives this
> is correct.

Do you agree that foo@@ver1 will resolve both foo and foo@@ver1? If
it is true, it doesn't make any senses that the linker only checks
foo, not foo@@ver1.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> The point is that this is not how the versioning stuff is designed.
> Nobody has thought about the consequences to the end.  Introducing
> *might* cause problems and then it's too late since some people might
> even use this.  The situation where your patch could be useful cannot

Anything can be misused. It doesn't mean we should leave them broken.
You may not like how it is used. But it is besides the point.


H.J.