From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gnu-gabi-return-79-listarch-gnu-gabi=sourceware.org@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 46439 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2016 18:28:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gnu-gabi.sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gnu-gabi@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gnu-gabi-subscribe@sourceware.org>
Sender: gnu-gabi-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 46138 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2016 18:28:00 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99.1 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=20160701, 2016-07-01, Hx-languages-length:529, ifuncs
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-HELO: port70.net
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0000
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>, hegdesmailbox@gmail.com,
	gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: GNU dlopen(3) differs from POSIX/IEEE
Message-ID: <20160730182745.GV19691@port70.net>
References: <25bc0c78-19ae-8974-b142-bb57f21cdb3d@gmail.com>
 <ca68d193-0a5d-1dc1-dc8c-bc59c8c27627@redhat.com>
 <763cd6f7-e33d-8d14-c0ba-f4e5797ddfa6@gmail.com>
 <42a86c64-a042-0c0d-9601-49729816c825@redhat.com>
 <8fead36d-c757-038a-3914-146ebeee8830@gmail.com>
 <f13c1d81-5f55-3d98-ee9c-7e39b8f28704@redhat.com>
 <877fd5dr38.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877fd5dr38.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-SW-Source: 2016-q3/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2

* Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> [2016-07-01 22:46:19 +0200]:
> I am not sure what the exact semantics of lazy binding should be.
> With IFUNCs, lazy binding is observable, and we know from Fedora's
> BIND_NOW experiment that some applications assume that undefined
> functions which are never called do not cause any trouble whatsoever.

this bind now experiment made me curious but i could not
find the results and its description.

is there a list of affected packages somewhere?