Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:07:36 +0100 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: libc.so symbols that are not reserved * Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2013-11-11 21:55:40 -0500]: > 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). ok i didnt think it through > 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). actually dup3 is __ prefixed already so the only exceptions are pipe2 stdin stdout stderr getservbyname_r getservbyport_r if pipe2 and dup3 are in the next standard then i dont think they have to be weak
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.