[PING][PATCH][BZ #15022] Correct global-scope dlopen issues in static executables

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Wed, 15 May 2013, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> >> I've reviewed your code, and your new test cases and they look 
> >> good to me.
> >>
> >> Roland's comment about preserving user-visible semantics doesn't 
> >> seem to apply in this case. This case has never worked as far as 
> >> I can tell which means there are no directly user-visible semantics
> >> to preserve. I would say your patch is a big step forwards to
> >> preserving the user-visible semantics from the dynamic application
> >> and ensuring that the static application mostly behaves in the
> >> same way. It is completely acceptable IMO that the global scope
> >> should be empty for a static executable and that dlsym() should
> >> return appropriate errors.
> >>
> >> The additional tststatic5 and tststatic6 tests are exactly the tests
> >> that I would have wanted; they are minimal and express the behaviour
> >> that we expect from the API without involving anything overly 
> >> complicated.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the detailed problem description, and thorough analysis.
> >> It's always a pleasure to review your patches.
> >>
> >> I'm OK with version 2 going into 2.18.
> > 
> >  Thanks for your review and words of appreciation.  Does anyone else have 
> > anything to add?
> 
> Roland's recent comments have been that he is busy until next week.
> I wouldn't expect him to respond until then.
> 
> Given that I feel we have addressed Roland's comments I would say
> check this in on May 23nd of nobody objects. That gives another week
> for others to comment or Roland to respond.

 Roland, do you want to add anything before I push this change?  If not, 
then I'll commit it tomorrow.

  Maciej