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


On 7 Dec 1999, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> 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
that..

> 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).

Linus


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.330 / U:1.092 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site