On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:41:25PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Loïc Minier wrote: > > > Do you strip the "well known symbols" you've seen on each arch so that > > > one only has to specify the other symbols? > > > No, because they might change with the toolchain and we want to track that > > properly... > > Why does it need tracking? If these symbols were to disappear that would > be no loss, it shouldn't be relevant to the library ABIs at all. I think it > would indeed be better to exclude these symbols from the list.
Somehow I always thought that the executables were using those symbols. If that's not the case, and if they are only used by the internal machinery (i.e. none of those symbols actually appear undefined in objdump's output of a program), then I'll happily strip them from the symbols file. That exclude list will still have to be maintained over the years I think since the list will probably evolve. I'm checking for example on a powerpc machine: /bin/ls: file format elf32-powerpc DYNAMIC SYMBOL TABLE: 10025168 DF *UND* 00000010 GLIBC_2.0 readlink 10025170 DF *UND* 00000154 GLIBC_2.0 getgrnam 1001136c g DF .text 0000003c Base _restgpr_18 10025178 DF *UND* 0000003c GLIBC_2.2 __fpending 10011444 g DF .text 00000014 Base _restgpr_31_x 1001138c g DF .text 0000001c Base _restgpr_26 100112f8 g DF .text 00000018 Base _savegpr_27 10011384 g DF .text 00000024 Base _restgpr_24 10011424 g DF .text 00000034 Base _restgpr_23_x So it looks like those symbols are defined in each and every binary. But the programs do not rely on the same symbols from the libraries. Thus it seems fine to exclude them from the symbols files. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
