[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: What I suspect

    On 7 Dec 1999, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
    > Linus Torvalds <> writes:
    > > But is that really even an issue?
    > People are even complaining when I fix bugs in the behaviour of the
    > ELF loader.

    Hey, people always complain when something changes. No way to get around

    > I don't even want to start thinking about the reaction
    > when suddenly well documented and correctly implemented functionality
    > is changing. Don't even think about going this road.

    You're implying that my suggestion would not be "well documented or
    corectly implemented". I don't agree. If you're adding _new_ weak
    functions to a standard library, I don't think you want old binaries to
    suddenly change behaviour just because they happened to use a symbol that
    now clashes with the new library (but didn't even use to exist).

    Standard libraries shouldn't add new symbols anyway in a perfect world,
    but if they do, you _definitely_ don't want to change the way an old
    binary works. I can see nothing but chaos from that.

    So I still think pre-linking should be perfectly fine =without= checking
    weak symbols like Davem suggested. In fact, I'd argue that re-checking is
    the wrong thing to do from a "least surprises" standpoint.

    (Of course, if the link changes dynamically due to miscompare of the
    pre-linked address or because new prelinked libraries are added, then the
    full linking has to be done - it just shouldn't be necessary for the
    common case).


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.025 / U:23.728 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site