On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > ... > > This doesn't solve the problem, and -Bsymbolic only solves a portion of > the problem. > > ...
I have looked at -Bsymbolic, and it seems to be doing about the same as my proposed change (see elsewhere), however the docs on this potato box are too ambiguous to be usable, so here are some (stupid) questions (don't bother to answer those) and some food for thought depending on what the answers to the stupid questions are. 1. Is -Bsymbolic applied to the .so or the binary calling it? (I assume the .so but it does not matter here). 2. If an .so is built with -Bsymbolic, can it still be used by programs linked against a non-Bsymbolic copy of the same .so? 3. If a binary is linked against a -Bsymbolic .so, can it still be used with a non-Bsymbolic lib with the same .so name? And finally the real question (I'll figure the above out myself, but don't want to delay this message while I investigate): 4. If the answers to both of the above are yes, what harm would there be in simply turning -Bsymbolic on by default in the debian copy of binutils (and contributing it upstream)? Whatever the solution my point here and elsewhere is that when there is a choice, making a lot of maintainers and developers work hard (whether on code, scripts or upstream negotiations) is almost always worse than fixing some part of the toolchain to do the work for them by default (freedom dictates that the default can be turned off). Friendly Jakob -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
