[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190128152244.GA28581@voyager>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:22:45 +0100
From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: (OT?) Re: Symbol versioning approximation trips on
compat symbols
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 02:08:13PM +0100, u-uy74@...ey.se wrote:
> If there is a feature which is hard or impossible to test for, like
> symbol versioning, it means that the applications may _have_ to rely on
> an explicit build flag telling whether to use it.
>
Why is symbol versioning hard to test for, again? You make a library
containing two versions of the same function, one returns one, the other
two. The one that returns one is the default symbol. The test
application tries to link against the version that returns two. If that
works, symbol versioning is supported.
Or do you have to take care of toolchains without shared linking support
as well? Is there such a thing as static libs with symbol versioning?
Ciao,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
