Re: [PATCH v9 0/13] implement dlmem() function

[stsp <stsp2@yandex.ru>]

Adhemerval,

14.04.2023 01:02, Adhemerval Zanella Netto пишет:
> Because it is the same remark bought *multiple* times in this thread [1]
> that you keep saying it is not important on the discussion:
>
> "It would be possible to require the caller to arrange all of
> these things, but that's basically offloading A LOT of the ELF
> loading process onto the calling program and I don't think that
> makes for a reasonable public interface for glibc to provide."

That cr^H^Hcomment was indeed brought
to me several times. But there is a second part
of a deal, which is to explain how it is ever
relevant to my patches. Maybe it was not
possible before I wrote a proper spec draft,
but its definitely possible now.

> And every time someone brought it [2], you just reply that

... that its a bu^H^Hirrelevant comment, having
ZERO relevance to my patches?
Well, its true. Now when the patches are properly
specced, I think I have a right to ask why that
comment is even raised at all. Does it have anything
to do with my spec draft? No. Does it have anything
to do with my patches? No. Does it have anything
to do with my usage examples? No. Does it anything
to do with some theoretical usage examples of my
API? Still no!
Does it have to do with anything at all? No.
What should I do? :(

Oh, idea!
Szabolcs never lies, I trust him.
If he says I should address (or even read) that
comment, and that its a comment that is "somehow"
relevant to my API and patches, then I'll bring my
patches down.
But so far I was only seeing that comment as an
attempt to discredit my work by any price, even
by the pure hideous lie. :(


>   this since it
> does not fit in your usercase this is not an acceptable solution.

And I never said anything like this, too.


>    And
> then we kept in circles, with multiple developers saying that this
> interface-like is not reasonable, and you saying that it is the only way
> to solve your specific usercase.

No.
We are walking in circles with intentionally malicious
argument towards my work, because you wanted to
put my patches down by any price.
This is unacceptable.

Szabolcs will not repeat that malicious argument,
or if he will, I'll put my patches down.