Re: Compat symbols in abilist files

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 04/18/2017 06:18 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
>> I've come up with the attached patch to mark compat symbols as such in the
>> abilist files.
>>
>> Do we want to do this?  The downside is that when building glibc in certain
>> non-standard configurations, some symbols are not compat symbols anymore (the
>> prime example is probably --enable-obsolete-rpc).  On the other hand, the
>> additional verification is valuable.
> 
> I'd consider whether a symbol is a compat symbol to be part of the API, 
> not the ABI; I don't think it belongs in these files.
> 
> It may well make sense to be able to assert that a particular symbol is 
> not available for new programs to link against, for either static or 
> dynamic linking.  Or that any given symbol has at most one non-compat 
> version, in at most one library, except for cases (if any) explicitly 
> whitelisted as deliberately having public versions in more than one 
> library.
 
Could you expand on why you think this is not part of the ABI?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.