This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Binary compatibility loss regarding errno

On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 12:19:49AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 05:57:34PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:53:53PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > > (have R_386_32 relocation against x@VERS_1 and x@VERS_1 exported
> > > > from the library). I'll work on this.
> > > > But .symver x,x@VERS_1 is grey area, I believe it should not be
> > > > allowed (it is not for .symver x,x@@VERS_1 BTW).
> > > 
> > > There are several places in glibc we would have to change in that case.
> > > It was always allowed before.  It works in other cases, e.g. __ctype_b.
> > 
> > I know that very well. But as I remember, __ctype_b etc. was done that way
> > exactly because .symver __old_ctype_b, __ctype_b@GLIBC_2.0 + access to
> > __ctype_b in the same DSO/binary was borken, so
> > .symver __ctype_b, __ctype_b@GLIBC_2.0 was used, as that seemed
> > to work. Apparently only partly.
> On the other side, with
> .symver y,x@VERS_1
> .symver z,x@VERS_2
> reloc against SHN_UNDEF x
> it is unclear which of the symbols actually should be used.

It is kind of random. I think ld will pick the "first" one. But you can
always use y or z directly. That is how it is used in some places in


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