Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:55:40 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: libc.so symbols that are not reserved On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:39:47AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > i filtered nm -D libc.so for posix name space violations > and compared the results (weak symbols were omitted), some > of these should be fixed I'm unclear on why you consider them violations. They do not conflict with symbols in the application or in third-party libraries. This can easily be verified. Basically, symbols in shared libraries always act like weak symbols would in static linking (this may be a poor approximation of the reality, but it's close enough to be a useful way of thinking about it). What would in principle be problematic is if standard C or POSIX functions in libc depended on any of these symbols, since an application could interpose unrelated functionality with the same name. In practice that doesn't matter for dynamic linking since -Bsymbolic is used, but it would matter for static linking of course. As far as I know musl has no such issues (except for treating dup3, pipe2, etc. as if they were in POSIX since they will be in the next issue; if you object to that I'm not opposed to adding __-prefixed versions). Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.