This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] memset: fix define usage for shared libs


On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 05 April 2012 02:29:27 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > The proper define to check "am I in a shared lib" is "SHARED", not "PIC".
>> > The two new memset_chk functions incorrectly depend on "PIC".
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
>> >
>> > 2011-02-22 ?Mike Frysinger ?<vapier@gentoo.org>
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?* sysdeps/i386/i686/memset_chk.S: Change PIC to SHARED.
>> > ? ? ? ?* sysdeps/x86_64/memset_chk.S: Likewise.
>>
>> Please check this in.
>
> i don't recall being granted access to glibc git repo ... i'm in the
> sourceware.org cvs tree ...

Please apply for it. See the MAINTAINERS section on the wiki. I've
known you long enough that I'll sponsor you. You are also our official
contact for Gentoo so I expect to see the Gentoo patches filter
through you :-)

>> However, please re-read Ulrich's comments. His original complaint is valid.
>
> i don't know what you mean. ?i pointed out that "SHARED" and "PIC" have
> different meanings, and this code was utilizing the wrong one.

I fully agree, but that's not enough to get you an A.

Handing in a sheet with the answer doesn't always get you an A.

>> Tell us about your users, and your use case, and why something which
>> *normally* works (even if it's not correct), no longer works.
>>
>> That way we can *own* your problem and in the future when writing code
>> we'll remember why we need to be precise about PIC vs. SHARED.
>
> in the original posting, i was omitting "we build static objects for PIE usage
> which implies PIC" because Ulrich specifically rejected any patches that fixed
> that use case.
>
> in the repost, i could have included more details since we appear to be on a
> sane path now.

Thank you, I would appreciate that, and I appreciate your resolve to
continue working with the community.

Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]