Re: libc-base patch status

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

On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:16:14PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> >    Has the libc-base patch HJ Lu proposed been rejected? This is
> > the patch posted in...
> 
> I've never seen an adequate description of the problem and the way it is
> thought it should be.  The test case is wrong since this basemodnew.c
> file defines symbols with empty version names but the version map
> doesn't export them.  Empty version names are obviously not possible.
> If there are only problems with such invalid input this is a user
> problem and needs no changes in glibc.
> 

Unspecified base version is documented in ld info pages:

---
   To do this, you must use multiple `.symver' directives in the source
file.  Here is an example:

     __asm__(".symver original_foo,foo@");
     __asm__(".symver old_foo,foo@VERS_1.1");
     __asm__(".symver old_foo1,foo@VERS_1.2");
     __asm__(".symver new_foo,foo@@VERS_2.0");

   In this example, `foo@' represents the symbol `foo' bound to the
unspecified base version of the symbol.  The source file that contains
this example would define 4 C functions: `original_foo', `old_foo',
`old_foo1', and `new_foo'.
---

It can be used to convert an existing unversioned DSO into a versioned
DSO without using a version name. The new version is only used when
the existing funtion's ABI is changed.


H.J.