glibc: loading of shared objects with holes wastes address space

[Roland McGrath]

> The gap is deliberately PROT_NONE so that the program occupies a
> consecutive address range.

As I explained, that is well-understood.  The change I described would not
affect that situation for any object linked with the normal layouts,
because the only possible gap is one less than described by the p_align of
the segment before the gap.  So what's the harm in handling nonstandard
layouts differently?


Thanks,
Roland