This is the mail archive of the libc-help@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: glibc's use of gnu_indirect_function feature - is it backwardscompatible?


On 8/10/2011 10:12 PM, Bryan Ischo wrote:
> Just looking for confirmation that if I, say, patch my binutils to
> leave the ABI identification alone even if the object "has gnu
> symbols" (in binutils parliance), can I expect things to "just
> work"?

No. It's not "backwards compatibility" it's actually "forwards
compatbility" that you need. You want to run a new binary or
library with an old linker. It isn't going to work.

Yes, glibc and ld.so must be updated together, they are absolutely
dependent on each other.

I strongly suggest simply implementing STT_GNU_IFUNC support
for your target, it's not that difficult. If you can't implement 
STT_GNU_IFUNC support, perhaps because your "secret" target
prevents it, then stay with an old glibc.

What problem are you trying to solve in the first place that
you need to upgrade glibc?

Cheers,
Carlos.


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