From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103925 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2016 14:52:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: gnu-gabi-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 103902 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2016 14:52:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1266, claim, highly X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,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: mail-qg0-f45.google.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=m2dCIZJBYtELVOmUaaLn6z7C3jBaLpFGLqfXntEhdlw=; b=ikoCEfAi3u3iyijynF9S6mWGXT/woQvjrv0dhpMNSh+FOat+8DIsCg1btPbIMEfJmB m7VhWGCUF1j6GhOuu1I5NjTut+3QYuJO4VOqN3J6/kcWvMpdo2ye52IRcvkCFU7eqDkz X/0sqXnAPF/ofttu0pXbmHmUMEXWiUUCrpgYpeix6SnD0QN6tuKhmJnvHEbcBJxicovW RHaT14eFSzYjoDrPp8UYJrUN0fRUPZ3rmlEYFpDOyFmy43yfQgZULL/7cLdZWk+YHMfz M7KKlMPviuSo8FXtVHMEZDNbRwt6eQDCHwV3hM4/iYWXrttRiUe98SrVyjaptJ3LAYes KVjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=m2dCIZJBYtELVOmUaaLn6z7C3jBaLpFGLqfXntEhdlw=; b=IYPOs/LcF2IXcmsX/NOtK3OIebxB1huu3hRpGxX1Nqj9uCzeHVRPMkEs9YxE8eULSl 2p76o5CFd9j6bm6+ApSu+KVdHk/67o3e4QlX0pW9t6FPRCLxWBGi+7ZPn3ytNokzbKBr ofIzvcevEfP+JkSMkzbSu4a/nouh8Gmm1shjGHJ4zqxx9Bo7ISRx0zq4w3aC8a6PSeJh DTsXS0bp8p2LpcQel/ayKqaXYOAi4qvJdC9golUQCFtIuw/zloR9gwm1IjbhJo1m3ELG Vk3EyOzCQ1a5MbwgzERGjLF+eTZNxn923TaNXjHglqmpebvYtYzYt+1y8UTfDajpH/lQ 1G0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOT+BOVkPmk7StZrC6mXfiSFpv7hkVH3MI4VwlItM1UlMmjrA7GQn3zBHggTL2r29Unh1Pl0rIHqLmMvHw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.16.225 with SMTP id 88mr49945596qgb.96.1456325544619; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 06:52:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56CD0FC8.4030202@redhat.com> References: <20160223044029.GE10657@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20160224010458.GF10657@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20160224015659.GH10657@bubble.grove.modra.org> <56CD0FC8.4030202@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Specify how undefined weak symbol should be resolved in executable From: "H.J. Lu" To: "Carlos O'Donell" Cc: Alan Modra , Michael Matz , gnu-gabi@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2016-q1/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 02/23/2016 08:56 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:18:16PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:10:51AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> At run-time, there is no difference between weak defined and non-weak >>>>> defined symbols. >>>> >>>> This is not true, and even if it was.. >>>> >>> >>> Please do >>> >>> # git grep dl_dynamic_weak >>> >>> in glibc to see it for yourself. >> >> That's exactly the code that shows ld.so can treat weak and strong >> symbols differently! (And yes, I know the default setting of >> dl_dynamic_weak.) >> >> Besides, the main point of my comment was that it is simply faulty >> reasoning to claim that the linker needs to change because of some >> ld.so behaviour. > > Agreed. Anything that brings back weak symbols into the dynamic loader > is going to be highly suspect to me, and require a lot of explaining. > I was saying as far as ld was concerned, weak defined and non-weak defined dynamic symbols would be treated equally at run-time. Do you agree with me? -- H.J.