This is the mail archive of the
libc-help@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc's use of gnu_indirect_function feature - is it backwardscompatible?
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: Bryan Ischo <bryan at ischo dot com>
- Cc: libc-help at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:20:38 -0400
- Subject: Re: glibc's use of gnu_indirect_function feature - is it backwardscompatible?
- References: <4E433A86.2020406@ischo.com>
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.