From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com (smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com [185.125.188.123]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADE1D3858413 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 20:57:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org ADE1D3858413 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canonical.com Received: from mail-lf1-f69.google.com (mail-lf1-f69.google.com [209.85.167.69]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D97433F10A for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 20:57:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical.com; s=20210705; t=1664830637; bh=IRXF9ha70Ea+U6VW0xr6HdV3NCqoipQW1DGrEuVeo+g=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=lR/zQkXQTk6qNwGcCqSc22j/5RX5ZEQe9bJaQo17exVqTecK8DGTAhGQOd6IPCB7T MtIJzU0XZqIysTwRGYezIqpw4I8475cQ0pM80vOGJRj/3FrkydXya730t+P8imn/eB MPPhL3v3Zm78T0ASgu/0LiT6aFdaxO9UEy/IQJOO+8/DAS5zdGtWFEkV3JR+aFIgaH vx9yzEtgdJLWbEZRomMbdd4t9+BD3BYsc2Mhe3VrLsdPOkRsOSrD4ZF+EAvLkUDx3J xktF9jkWHuJxjYgykjDyTl/CR/EBzp+gC+BtmnhZLM4p8bgR17fC6I+mWOfhXxPiCG dLUDQwC2pAHoQ== Received: by mail-lf1-f69.google.com with SMTP id bt23-20020a056512261700b004a1d87bd3e9so4562969lfb.20 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=IRXF9ha70Ea+U6VW0xr6HdV3NCqoipQW1DGrEuVeo+g=; b=7YayuMDy0lqy5nj7Lgn4KnJxnb0w4ddl8TkLNBJdibW8Els29cxkbyLr6z3YC824B1 GrZgxSkmMFq5WEzuUh2oxuq+ij0LRuaqeluJWkcV8SV3xG+2DU2630A6V3+98dWAZczp BEnOFwYMu61AFpCVBbCgb0pug1fATtChMc2Bi8P4Fv85X8FaC4kHzxE5NHIMFABhuT1E KZsdGAxY0GziIX/l87yYZRP0sXLtfzBx5Q2XlYoPPnoo2IjQBM/hUwdjoB+Pn+JUp9hx na5ZxyCXatzToRjWNPyCTtShtx/GvcbETFVjF/11oWZDZJZk38yosCJTJL7Aohn9Nt2i tLyw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1tQZfyy9zBV2J2vM4Hx6F2t4WJWKOPIqUdQKSJndrPc/0x0vZS pkUQfQxbbQGPcB4vkIMEHqqL+5nN/8zxGdNMAsYMCbpq2hM0gux9yVlgykfx3yItrS4hgcWNHMz cWfrIuXXwKQNcNNLe1tvqxQVb7itK2pTQAvOpmR7lHZJpJfOw+67V5A== X-Received: by 2002:a19:5f4f:0:b0:49f:543b:190e with SMTP id a15-20020a195f4f000000b0049f543b190emr7683577lfj.547.1664830637299; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM77onbWtdeonwDylPUeLnt7ao6pcQ9ehlbwKyzRws9856XKEAjXo3baoBJUKQC6OrRxE9t31UWXptw98zCZz0s= X-Received: by 2002:a19:5f4f:0:b0:49f:543b:190e with SMTP id a15-20020a195f4f000000b0049f543b190emr7683570lfj.547.1664830637040; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:57:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8c6fbd40-a0c6-d84f-4e5a-10e7109ffc08@linaro.org> <87bkstn566.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <128f4264-d3da-9b04-e567-89b4e73fe299@redhat.com> <20221001074055.cwwid4yxy6zdmzhn@google.com> <87edvsx7fh.fsf@linux-m68k.org> In-Reply-To: <87edvsx7fh.fsf@linux-m68k.org> From: Michael Hudson-Doyle Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:57:05 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Should we make DT_HASH dynamic section for glibc? To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Sam James , Florian Weimer , "Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb85ea05ea279698" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: --000000000000bb85ea05ea279698 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 21:41, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Okt 01 2022, Sam James wrote: > > > True, but it helps those who have been on the fence and didn't > > want to deviate from glibc upstream. It also shows that it's > > an acceptable move to make. > > It's much easier to configure binutils with > --enable-default-hash-style=both. > My impression though is that it's only whether libc.so.6 has DT_HASH that matters though. Ubuntu and Debian have had --hash-style=gnu as a gcc default for years and afaict this has caused no problems whatsoever. Currently I have a downstream patch for both hash styles on libc for Ubuntu and while I guess having this upstream would be nice, it's hardly a priority. Cheers, mwh --000000000000bb85ea05ea279698--