This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Symbol versioning for secondary libraries is not effective
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:46:15 +0000
- Subject: Re: Symbol versioning for secondary libraries is not effective
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <68991e3f-89e0-5c98-8afa-593c49417510@redhat.com>
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> in mind for future changes. It is also a mild argument in favor of moving
> symbols into libc.so.6, I think.
Suppose you make the libc.so linker script reference some or all of the
other libraries inside AS_NEEDED. Do that result in them being
automatically linked into shared libraries that use symbols from them, or
does it only work for executables?
Referencing libraries inside AS_NEEDED is arguably friendlier to users
anyway - e.g. those not familiar with Unix conventions may not expect to
need to use -lm. And POSIX has no notion of a separate -ldl (or -lcrypt)
being needed to get some standard interfaces. (There are other ways in
which an implementation of the POSIX c99 utility is not a completely
trivial wrapper round "gcc", e.g. the POSIX rules about -D and -U option
ordering, but there's no need for the library to make it more complicated
than necessary.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com