[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190717033735.GJ1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 23:37:35 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Removing glibc from the musl .2 ABI
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:58:38PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> (Full disclosure: I am the principal author of gcompat.)
>
> Hi,
>
> Now that gcompat has matured, I was wondering if perhaps musl should
> consider dropping the glibc ABI guarantees when the "2 ABI" lands.
>
> This would make the LFS64 symbol mess completely moot.
This is separate from the .2 ABI topic, but what would you think about
removing glibc ABI-compat from the current .1 ABI and replacing it
with enhanced gcompat? I was thinking ldso could load libgcompat
instead of returning a reference to itself for DT_NEEDED referencing
libc.so.6, and we could move all ABI-compat symbols into gcompat.
The reason I bring it up is that ripping out the LFS64
unwantedly-linkable stuff while keeping it as ABI-only is looking like
more of a pain than I expected.
Rich
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.
