This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PATCH: Spell exp2l correctly
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:16:29PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > What's the failure condition look like if you add a symbol to an old
> > version? I don't see why a new application linking against
> > exp2l@GLIBC_2.4 would fare any differently than a new application
> > linking against exp2l@GLIBC_2.1, but presumably there's a reason...
> Version set dependencies are detected immediately at startup with a fairly
> clear error, whereas a missing symbol can cause a crash that's not seen
> until it's actually called (when recovering the error message might have
> become more confusing). In practice, you won't ever get as far as startup,
> because packagers like rpm automatically represent version sets in the
> package dependencies and so you can know before even attempting to install
> your operating system that the provided glibc doesn't meet the requirements
> of the given application package.
Ah, thanks! It was the lazy binding bit that I didn't grok.