On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote: > Apparently the "different interpretation" is what I was assuming the > current one.
Yeah, I was in a severe headache for a while because I too knew about the old interpretation apparently. > How about the implementing the GNU extension? It would be useful, yes. But I think it is completely out of the possibilities for the near future -- you need to get it upstream, and let it deploy first. So can we go with versioned symbols (plus -Bsymbolic in key libraries if just versioned symbols isn't enough for that particular library -- not many have an API so broken that -Bsymbolic is actually required when versioned symbols are in use). > Or, alternatively, how about changing the semantics of DT_SYMBOLIC? > (shouldn't cause serious problems, would it?) I am somehow very not amused by the idea of tracking down the problems this _could_ cause. If we didn't have versioned symbols, I'd say go for it. But we do, so IMHO we really should take the clean path. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
