This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Performance problem of dlopen


On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 03:58:28PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:48:15AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:36:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > There is one thing which ld.so can do better (it is even implemented
> > > in ld.so, but disabled for now because e.g. librt.so depends
> > > on the old behaviour) - ATM if symbol lookup encounters a weak symbol,
> > 
> > I kept hearing librt.so dpend on it. Do we have a testcase in glibc
> > for this?
> 
> Actually, with current librt.so containing:
> GROUP ( /lib/libpthread.so.0  /lib/librt.so.1 )
> it shouldn't be a problem for newly compiled programs. Programs with just
> DT_NEEDED librt.so.1
> DT_NEEDED libc.so.6
> are screwed up, because for symbol lookups the order will be librt.so.1,
> libc.so.6, libpthread.so.0.

Well, I thought that change was for a different bug, which was
indepdenent of the weak/strong issue. That is

GROUP ( /lib/libpthread.so.0  /lib/librt.so.1 )

is needed regardless if we make weak == strong or not.  Let me ask it
again. If we make weak == strong, what will be broken? If yes, do we
have a testcase in glibc?



H.J.


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