Re: libiberty...

[Scott Bambrough <scottb at netwinder dot org>]

Roland McGrath wrote:
> 
> > It is dubious.  And I don't think the dynamic linker is at fault.
> 
> Sorry, you are mistaken.  It is obscure, but completely well-specified and
> valid.  The dynamic linker is indeed at fault, and that opinion is the
> consensus of all the people responsible for maintaining the dynamic linker.

I've been re-reading the ELF spec this afternoon, and I have reluctantly
come to the same conclusion.  I can't blame anyone else as it was Pat
Beirne and I who did the ARM ELF implementation of the dynamic linker in
GLIBC.

> That said, it remains that same consensus holds that it's not worth
> bothering with implementing those relocs in the dynamic linker until
> someone finds a need and feels compelled to do it and send in a patch.  It
> is the expectation that anyone who makes use of this obscure feature (which
> as yet is not fully implemented in the GNU dynamic linker) was most likely
> doing so by accident, i.e. they really wanted to compile their code as PIC.

I agree and I feel the need.  I guess I know what I will be doing next
week.

> Since having relocs in text sucks wet goat farts as a general rule, I think
> it would be useful to have a warning (though perhaps not on by default)
> from the linker whenever it finds DT_TEXTREL is necessary.

Interesting way of putting it :).  I agree a warning is warranted.

Scott

-- 
Scott Bambrough - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM    http://www.rebel.com
NetWinder    http://www.netwinder.org