glibc 2.36 - Slushy freeze (3 weeks to release)

[Jan Beulich]

On 12.07.2022 06:24, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 7:32 PM Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 08:48:18AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Binutils wrote:
>>>> The R_LARCH_NONE issue should only affect performance,
>>>> since it should be ignored by loader although I am not sure without
>>>> understanding better the issue.
>>
>> R_*_NONE relocs are harmless in an executable or shared library, if
>> their presence is due to overallocating space for relocations.  Of
>> course, if ld should actually be emitting some other dynamic reloc
>> type then that is a more serious problem.
>>
>>> Fangrui suggested [2] we should assume R_LARCH_NONE does not exist to
>>> simplify the code and catch ld bugs earlier.
>>
>> Yes that will annoy your user base into reporting bugs.  How much do
>> you want to annoy them?  You might like to consider why other major
>> architectures with mature linkers process and ignore R_*_NONE relocs
>> in the loader..
> 
> If a linker port has a high confidence level, removing dynamic
> R_*_NONE support from the loader shall be the right thing.

How could that be? A dynamic loader ought to support binaries from
all kinds of sources (as long as they're complying to the spec).
What confidence level a particular linker port has shouldn't really
matter imo.

Jan