This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC: Don't output symbol version requirement for non-DT_NEEDED libs
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:27:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFC: Don't output symbol version requirement for non-DT_NEEDED libs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141127081644 dot GA20383 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <54775069 dot 2090905 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1411272358160 dot 15307 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 11/27/2014 07:06 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 11/27/2014 03:16 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>> So, absent someone implementing a glibc fix, how about we just drop
>>> the symbol versioning for weak symbols, when their defining library
>>> won't be in DT_NEEDED? Note that if "f" above was a strong symbol,
>>> ld will still complain with "./libb.so: error adding symbols: DSO
>>> missing from command line".
>> This seems like the wrong thing to do, particularly since it violates
>> the principle of least surprise. I would expect the versioned symbol
>> to stay versioned.
>> What's wrong with fixing this in glibc?
> Actually, I think it's a linker bug not a glibc bug. If you don't link
> with a library providing a symbol you use, I don't think any information
> at all about how it might be resolved with some library you didn't link
> against should be embedded in the binary: not a DT_NEEDED entry, and not a
> version requirement. I don't think you can presume at static link time,
> with a weak undefined symbol like that, "this symbol isn't needed, but if
> defined at runtime it must have this version" (as opposed to "this symbol
> isn't needed, and might have any version at runtime", which is the safe
I had not considered it like that. I agree with your rationale.
In which case this is clearly a bug in binutils and Alan's patch
I tried to come up with a case where this would matter, but from
first principles I couldn't construct any sensible test cases.