Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:53:22 +0100 | From | Martin von Loewis <> | Subject | Re: Module versioning |
| |
> Hmm, for ELF-based systems, one could try to use ELF symbol versioning > instead of a hash-code and since that is already part of the current > binutils it should not be a problem. The question however is if that > is sufficient for our purposes? Could someone with more understanding > how module versioning works comment on this?
AFAIK, these are different approaches. In ELF symbol versioning, the developer assigns a version number, guaranteeing that versions are only changed if a binary incompatibility is introduced.
In Linux module versioning, 'version' numbers are automatically generated from the signature of the symbol. Simple C++ style mangling is not sufficient, because you also want to encode the structure layout of the structures the function processes.
I believe a manual process would introduce inacceptable overhead, as those functions and data structures change more frequent than they do in, say, glibc (which follows standardized interfaces).
Regards, Martin
| |