From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id B7E953858CDA; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 05:37:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B7E953858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1679981860;
	bh=dsh1U04RmvXOtZYkjIENI+l/m+3BQcGG44z5hjqsW8U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=thC7E1MFPTiWnrc8JwZcI3sz3OQkwIe5zLekzOO8Ga81uP6CqNnGlv/8Ax7r/TYrJ
	 bC0W2guQbNiOsMUxXVqWPkRSj7/zayM8y9R7KNyGGvWL6vwnoPb3oPwOZJQpdRDRoj
	 UuGub6CQbaq2nuSNGoncR7HBknH9mJhqICa0Rf1Y=
From: "stsp at users dot sourceforge.net"
 <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug dynamic-link/30007] rfe: dlopen to specified address
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 05:37:40 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: dynamic-link
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: stsp at users dot sourceforge.net
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-30007-131-tX5L1yYIXL@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-30007-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-30007-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30007

--- Comment #26 from Stas Sergeev <stsp at users dot sourceforge.net> ---
(In reply to Jonathon Anderson from comment #23)
> These are niceties, but I think we can agree a direct implementation of
> dlopen_with_offset() would be better for the use cases that need it. It
> would also require far less refactors than dlmem().

Getting a bit more abstract here,
why refactors are that bad? glibc
is full of multi-thousands-line funcs
intersected by gotos. Is this because
the refactors are prohibited?
I mean, I was hoping for a "thank you"
for a couple of small refactors.
Is the current glibc code style (huge
spaghetti funcs) is intentional and
enforced?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=