Re: weak handling

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:33:37PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:08:12PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > I just checked in a patch which brings the handling of weak
> > definitions at runtime in line with the official[*] ELF
> > interpretation.  That is weak symbol definitions are treated like
> > normal definitions during dynamic linking.  The weak attribute is only
> > used in the static linker (and for references).
> > 
> > This came up some time ago during the ELF discussions HJ and I are
> > participating in.  I cannot think of a program which would have
> > problems because of this change.  In case there is one the user can
> > switch back to the old behaviour by having LD_DYNAMIC_WEAK in the
> > environment.
> > 
> > The reason I've made this change is not really to be more conformant
> > (it's nice but no reason since nobody complained about the old
> > behaviour).  The real reason is that some more features (like lazy
> > loading) depend on this interpretation of weak definitions.
> > 
> > If you have or see problems with this let me know.
> 
> I could be wrong. What will happen to those libc symbols defined in
> the dynamic linker used for bootstrap? I thought those symbols were
> weak in ld.so and would be overridden by the strong ones in libc.so.
> 

Also I guess you have to deal with libpthread using a different
scheme.


H.J.