Hey, people always complain when something changes. No way to get around
that..
> I don't even want to start thinking about the reaction
> when suddenly well documented and correctly implemented functionality
> is changing. Don't even think about going this road.
You're implying that my suggestion would not be "well documented or
corectly implemented". I don't agree. If you're adding _new_ weak
functions to a standard library, I don't think you want old binaries to
suddenly change behaviour just because they happened to use a symbol that
now clashes with the new library (but didn't even use to exist).
Standard libraries shouldn't add new symbols anyway in a perfect world,
but if they do, you _definitely_ don't want to change the way an old
binary works. I can see nothing but chaos from that.
So I still think pre-linking should be perfectly fine =without= checking
weak symbols like Davem suggested. In fact, I'd argue that re-checking is
the wrong thing to do from a "least surprises" standpoint.
(Of course, if the link changes dynamically due to miscompare of the
pre-linked address or because new prelinked libraries are added, then the
full linking has to be done - it just shouldn't be necessary for the
common case).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/