This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: A patch for default version and archive
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 09:50:49AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> > It's impossible for third parties to adjudicate them, because nobody
> > knows what is supposed to happen. So I think that arguing over the
> > patch is putting the cart before the horse.
>
> Not really. What you see HJ trying to do is extending the versioning
> handling in areas which it was not used before. If you feel that
> already the existing implementation is problematic you should be
> completely opposed to any further extensions given there are other
> solutions for the issues which motivated these changes.
>
Ulrich, so far you have failed to provide a testcase to show the
problem with references to foo@ver1 and defintions of foo@@ver1 in
an archive. If you cann't, what you have said is just heresy.
I have testcases to back up what I said. If anyone on the binutils
list is interested, I will CC my glibc versioning extension proposal
to here. BTW, I have patches for glibc 2.1.3 and 2.2. They seem to
work as expected. I won't say it is perfect. But it is better than
other alternatives. For any one who is interested, you can start with
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18391
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@valinux.com)