From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fweimer@redhat.com>
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com
 (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E786385041B
 for <libc-help@sourceware.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:04:09 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 7E786385041B
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com
 [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id
 us-mta-153--i7zL8BuMEC6HNMe0npuew-1; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 11:04:07 -0500
X-MC-Unique: -i7zL8BuMEC6HNMe0npuew-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
 [10.5.11.16])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4182894DC1;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:04:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (ovpn-112-77.ams2.redhat.com
 [10.36.112.77])
 by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556F15C1C5;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:04:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Alessandro Carminati via Libc-help <libc-help@sourceware.org>
Cc: Alessandro Carminati <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: MIPSEL GLIBC sem_init() not shared
References: <CAPp5cGTV7vcxwnjh0aLoDJbOtVdY_==i25FvPr9ZYeFEsQCYHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87a6r87il4.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <CAPp5cGTfu38orQNtDRXrxenPDKYbJgEmFHjcw8QspURmCkZL0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPp5cGRtKiBv2nWrDFtWv90OHmodX4WavqzBOhyQGOqCff_Mbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87sg505zy0.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <CAPp5cGREJe02DmO5WastxPWEMjZf698usVPatgLpen1H3FTm9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:04:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAPp5cGREJe02DmO5WastxPWEMjZf698usVPatgLpen1H3FTm9A@mail.gmail.com>
 (Alessandro Carminati via Libc-help's message of "Fri, 12 Mar 2021
 14:41:15 +0100")
Message-ID: <87im5w4av2.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
 DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-help@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-help mailing list <libc-help.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-help>,
 <mailto:libc-help-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-help/>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-help-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-help>,
 <mailto:libc-help-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:04:10 -0000

* Alessandro Carminati via Libc-help:

> Al the sources I have found seems to agree on the fact that if a
> symbol is unversioned, like in my case, the symbol the dynamic linker
> should use is the one that carries the "@@"

I think they talk about the link editor (static linker) chosing the
symbol version, and not about what happens at run time.

> In my scenario, the symbol which carries the double @@ is the
> sem_init@@GLIBC_2_2.
> If the dynamic linker would have picked it, as it should, if I
> correctly interpret what I read, I wouldn't be here asking.

Old binaries originally linked against glibc without symbol versioning
would also use sem_init@@GLIBC_2.2 as the result, but that would result
in breakage because the type sizes are different.

Thanks,
Florian