This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Move new totalorder from libm to libc
* Andreas Schwab:
> On Dez 16 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Gabriel F. T. Gomes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Should we define the new totalorder in libc, so that it is harder to
>>>>get the wrong version at run time due to underlinking?
>>>
>>> I didn't understand how underlinking could cause a wrong version to be
>>> selected. Isn't totalorder only provided by libm? Where would a user
>>> program get the old version from? I can only imagine it getting undefined
>>> references during link time.
>>
>> If you build a shared object with -shared, you won't get an undefined
>> symbol error (with typical toolchains):
>
> What makes totalorder special in this regard?
It has multiple versions on all architectures now.
Previously, this only affected architectures which underwent a long
double transition.