Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:54:00 -0500 From: "A. Wilcox" <awilfox@...lielinux.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: friendly errors for ABI mismatch On 27/07/2020 11:03, Rich Felker wrote: > There is no way to give a more high-level reason for the runtime link > failure like "your program needs time64 and you're running with an old > musl" because the code reporting the error *is the old musl* that's > not aware of whatever it is that the new binary is missing. Maybe you > have something else in mind that I don't fully understand, but > whatever it is it would only address future missing symbol errors, not > the ones you're seeing right now. I think the request here is to have a "minimum musl version" encoded in the binary, so that the error would say "Sorry, this binary requires a newer musl version than you have." This is similar to the Win32 SUBSYSTEM property in PE. "The specified program requires a newer version of Windows." The problem is that this would lead to the same issue that prevents musl from defining a compiler macro with its number (#define __MUSL__ 0x010201 or such) - those that backport patches and/or features to older versions would necessarily be reporting a version number that is older than the patch/feature. Therefore, I don't see this working out for musl for the same reason. The bug here is trying to run musl 1.2 programs on musl 1.1 at all; this shouldn't even be possible. I've certainly never hit this, even while upgrading Adélie beta4 systems to RC1 on 32-bit computers. Best, --arw -- A. Wilcox (awilfox) Project Lead, Adélie Linux https://www.adelielinux.org Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
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.