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: [PING][PATCH][BZ #15022] Correct global-scope dlopen issues in static executables


On 05/15/2013 11:37 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> I've reviewed your code, and your new test cases and they look 
>> good to me.
>>
>> Roland's comment about preserving user-visible semantics doesn't 
>> seem to apply in this case. This case has never worked as far as 
>> I can tell which means there are no directly user-visible semantics
>> to preserve. I would say your patch is a big step forwards to
>> preserving the user-visible semantics from the dynamic application
>> and ensuring that the static application mostly behaves in the
>> same way. It is completely acceptable IMO that the global scope
>> should be empty for a static executable and that dlsym() should
>> return appropriate errors.
>>
>> The additional tststatic5 and tststatic6 tests are exactly the tests
>> that I would have wanted; they are minimal and express the behaviour
>> that we expect from the API without involving anything overly 
>> complicated.
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed problem description, and thorough analysis.
>> It's always a pleasure to review your patches.
>>
>> I'm OK with version 2 going into 2.18.
> 
>  Thanks for your review and words of appreciation.  Does anyone else have 
> anything to add?

Roland's recent comments have been that he is busy until next week.
I wouldn't expect him to respond until then.

Given that I feel we have addressed Roland's comments I would say
check this in on May 23nd of nobody objects. That gives another week
for others to comment or Roland to respond.

Cheers,
Carlos.


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