From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14418 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2003 03:37:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14396 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2003 03:37:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO myware.akkadia.org) (24.221.190.179) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2003 03:37:12 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (myware.akkadia.org [192.168.7.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by myware.akkadia.org (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h6M3ZrLO028535; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:35:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3F1CB119.7090402@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:37:00 -0000 From: Ulrich Drepper Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030720 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Modra CC: "H. J. Lu" , Richard Henderson , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] unify dynamic_symbol_p implementations References: <20030718222150.GF5270@redhat.com> <20030719024642.GA1188@lucon.org> <20030719041330.GA3732@lucon.org> <20030719055725.GF27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030719062106.GA5320@lucon.org> <20030720151351.GH27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030721192808.GA19330@lucon.org> <20030721204835.GA17924@redhat.com> <20030721210419.GA20861@lucon.org> <3F1C766E.3040804@redhat.com> <20030722011659.GU27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20030722011659.GU27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.80.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00410.txt.bz2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alan Modra wrote: > Has someone written up a draft psABI that defines weak symbol behaviour? > Or better, a draft gABI? gABI on www.caldera.com is still 24 April 2001. No, and I doubt it'll ever happen. There is too much diversion. Weak symbol are, and always have been, for the implementation only. Only the system libraries may use them and they are tightly coupled to the runtime linker. > Also, if ld follows the new semantics, which versions of glibc will no > longer build? Not that this should deter us from changing ld, but we'd > need to mention in release notes that older versions of glibc require > older versions of binutils. I don't think there is any problem with not building. Using new lds with old glibcs might be a problem but I have no concrete examples since I don't know the ld changes. - -- - --------------. ,-. 444 Castro Street Ulrich Drepper \ ,-----------------' \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `--------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/HLEZ2ijCOnn/RHQRAvlVAKCgzqgVAQRVjTrOh5fUD/+p/9JSdACgv/FP DU9jBd0IAPltipOIMdYrpcs= =iGT7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----