Symbol versioning question

Andreas Schwab schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Mon Dec 21 01:29:00 GMT 1998


Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@cs.cmu.edu> writes:

|> On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 06:58:21PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
|> > On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 06:51:23PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
|> > > I don't think it is proper to require that other sources be recompiled
|> > > between 2.0 and 2.1; that is part of binary compatibility.
|> > 
|> > I thought I understood this problem to be one between two
|> > versions of 2.1.
|> > 
|> 
|> But as I understand it it will happen on a 2.0->2.1 upgrade anyway.
|> 
|> It will require that, to compile new programs, every library be linked
|> against 2.1.  It doesn't harm actual binary compatibility, just
|> compile-time binary compatibility, as it were.  I still don't see why
|> this has to be the case.

But this can't be avoided.  Every part of the binary, statically or
dynamically linked, must use the same version of libio.  So if you have a
library that uses a GLIBC_2.0 FILE it won't work with another library that
uses a GLIBC_2.1 FILE.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.cs.uni-dortmund.de                      completely different"
schwab@gnu.org



More information about the Libc-alpha mailing list