This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: A patch for elf32.em (Re: GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined)
> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:11:36 -0800
> From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com>
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 12:54:28PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > > I don't know how useful it will be. I agree with Ian that it doesn't
> > > make much sense to warn about the undefined symbols in the DSOs you
> > > are linking against when you are building a DSO. It is very possible
> > > that those undefined symbols may change/disappear/be different from
> > > the runtime version.
> >
> > I would expect that the common case is that the version you are
> > linking against, and the version you are running with, will be the
> > same.
>
> What makes you think of that? I will bet my /lib/libc.so.6 has
> different content than yours on our Linux/ia32 machines. But why
Yes, but I don't usually send you compiled executables for you to
run---and even if I did, it would be helpful for me to check that they
worked on my system before sending them, even if the differences
between our systems meant that they might break on your system.
> do you care as long as they follow the same ABI version? The
> undefined symbols in the DSO are not the part of the ABI.
But surely they _are_ part of the ABI? DSOs can't suddenly start
requiring that applications have new symbols defined, and at runtime
you'd expect that every (non-weak) symbol gets defined somewhere.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>