Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:13:05 +0100 From: u-uy74@...ey.se To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: (OT?) Re: Symbol versioning approximation trips on compat symbols On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:29:12AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 02:08:13PM +0100, u-uy74@...ey.se wrote: > > If there is a feature which is hard or impossible to test for, like > > symbol versioning, it means that the applications may _have_ to rely on > > an explicit build flag telling whether to use it. > It wouldn't be hard to test for if toolchains had been consistent with > musl capabilities all along. They have not been. So we have a > situation where the valid build-time tests indicate support, but > runtime silently lacks it. I don't think this is a good situation to What is the value (the "validity"?) of a build-time test if it does not help to distinguish how to build a usable binary? This seems to be testing for A when we want to know B. > Fortunately, it mostly doesn't matter since the main intended usage > for versioning is to link to the current/default version symbols, > assuming your apps are all up-to-date with respect to your libs (and > libs wrt each other). But I still think honoring version bindings in > ldso is the right course of action. I assume you'll find a good balance between the cost/complexity and usefulness. (Musl is by far the best libc I ever worked with on Linux, among others omitting a number of regrettably popular misfeatures. Kudos.) Rune
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.