This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

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

Re: NEW PATCH: Handle undefined symbol in DSO from DT_NEEDED

On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:52:43AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > DSOs compiled against glibc 2.0 may have unversioned references to
> > > > atexit. I won't blame people for compiling DSOs against glibc 2.0.
> > > 
> But using these DSOs in a development environment that uses glibc 2.1
> or above is asking for trouble.  We shouldn't encourage people to do
> that.

I guess you haven't talked to or heard from many ISVs. They want to
provide a Linux binary which works on all glibc based systems. Guess
which glibc they are using for compiling. I had to tell them if the
new glibc breaks executables and DSOs compiled against glibc 2.0, just
let me know. I will fix it. I also told them .o files compiled against
glibc 2.0 might not be compatible with the new glibc.

> > 
> > Here is a new patch for ld. For undefined symbol in a DSO, the dynamic
> > linker binds it to a hidden definition if and only if there is only
> > one hidden definition. This patch will make ld to do the same, but 
> > only for DSO from DT_NEEDED. Otherwise, it is a real error.
> > 
> > If there is no objecttion, I will check it in by Friday.
> I strongly object to your patch.  The static linker shouldn't look at
> DT_NEEDED at all.  That it does right now seems convenient to the

We have been through this before. We didn't agree then. I don't think
we will agree on this now.

> user, but it isn't.  It makes it possible to create binaries that
> don't contain the right dependencies without the user noticing it.

I believe I have addressed this issue before. Unless you can provide
me a testcase, I don't believe it is true now.


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