Re: [PATCH] Make sunrpc code available for building again

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 16:55:33 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> wrote:
>> > As suggested, here's the "hacky" patch. I put it in git on a personal
>> > branch aj/revert-sunrpc,
>> >
>> > AFAIK this was done by Andreas Schwab, Andreas is this correct or how
>> > should I change the authorship?
>> >
>> > Ok to commit?
>> >
>> > Andreas
>> >
>> > 2012-05-09 ?Andreas Schwab ?<schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?* include/libc-symbols.h (libc_hidden_nolink): Redefine to
>> > ? ? ? ?hidden_def to allow again linking against the symbols.
>> > ? ? ? ?* sunrpc/Makefile (headers): Add rpc headers.
>> > ? ? ? ?* nis/Makefile (headers): Add rpc headers.
>> >
>> > commit 2377a584a909c1db63eac178f879ab837328701c
>> > Author: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>> > Date: ? Wed May 9 15:51:23 2012 +0200
>> >
>> > ? ?Make sunrpc code usable again
>> >
>> > ? ?This in effect reverts the obsoletion of the sunrpc code.
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?* include/libc-symbols.h (libc_hidden_nolink): Redefine to
>> > ? ? ? ?hidden_def to allow again linking against the symbols.
>> > ? ? ? ?* sunrpc/Makefile (headers): Add rpc headers.
>> > ? ? ? ?* nis/Makefile (headers): Add rpc headers.
>> >
>> > diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
>> > index 81d17c9..36ac87f 100644
>> > --- a/ChangeLog
>> > +++ b/ChangeLog
>> > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
>> > +2012-05-09 ?Andreas Schwab ?<schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>> > +
>> > + ? ? ? * include/libc-symbols.h (libc_hidden_nolink): Redefine to
>> > + ? ? ? hidden_def to allow again linking against the symbols.
>> > + ? ? ? * sunrpc/Makefile (headers): Add rpc headers.
>> > + ? ? ? * nis/Makefile (headers): Add rpc headers.
>> > +
>> > ?2012-05-08 ?Ian Wienand ?<ianw@vmware.com>
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?[BZ #14080]
>> > diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
>> > index ca1f753..e3133bb 100644
>> > --- a/NEWS
>> > +++ b/NEWS
>> > @@ -56,7 +56,11 @@ Version 2.16
>> >
>> > ?* More generic and 64-bit performance optimizations to math
>> > functions. Implemented by Ulrich Drepper.
>> > -
>> > +
>> > +* Resurrect the RPC implementation in libc so that it can be used
>> > again for + ?compilation of new programs. It will be removed once
>> > TI-RPC can fully + ?replace the glibc RPC code.
>> > +
>> > ?Version 2.15
>> >
>> > ?* The following bugs are resolved with this release:
>> > diff --git a/include/libc-symbols.h b/include/libc-symbols.h
>> > index 951e46a..db0f995 100644
>> > --- a/include/libc-symbols.h
>> > +++ b/include/libc-symbols.h
>> > @@ -556,7 +556,9 @@ for linking")
>> > ?# define libc_hidden_proto(name, attrs...) hidden_proto (name,
>> > ##attrs) # define libc_hidden_def(name) hidden_def (name)
>> > ?# define libc_hidden_weak(name) hidden_weak (name)
>> > -# define libc_hidden_nolink(name, version) hidden_nolink (name, libc,
>> > version) +/* libc_hidden_nolink is only used in sunrpc code, for now
>> > + ? export the symbols. ?*/
>>
>> Given that this is a hack can we do a mechanical change here to ensure
>> this option doesn't ever get used by anyone else?
>>
>> Can we call it `libc_hidden_nolink_sunrpc' and then mechanically
>> change the name used by all the interfaces?
>>
>> That prevents downstream hackers from accidentally using the generic
>> sounding libc_hidden_nolink and having it not work.
>>
>> Am I being overly paranoid?
>
> No, you're not - I grepped already for all users and it's indeed used only
> in sunrpc code.
>
> So, you want to change every usage of libc_hidden_nolink to
> libc_hidden_nolink_sunrpc? I can do that...
>
> Alternatively, we could also change all occurences to use directly to
> hidden_def.

Either sounds good to me. Your choice. Whatever is faster.

Cheers,
Carlos.