On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:42 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 6/30/22 08:43, Rui Ueyama wrote:
> > Thanks Martin for creating this patch.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> >
> > Here is a preliminary change for the mold side: 
> > https://github.com/rui314/mold/commit/9ad49d1c556bc963d06cca8233535183490de605
> >  
> > <https://github.com/rui314/mold/commit/9ad49d1c556bc963d06cca8233535183490de605>
> >
> > Overall the API is looking fine,
>
> Good then!
>
> > though it is not clear what kind of value is expected as a linker version. 
> > A linker version is not a single unsigned integer but something like 
> > "1.3.0". Something like "1.3.0-rc2" can also be a linker version. So I 
> > don't think we can represent a linker version as a single integer.
>
> Well, you can use the same what we use GCC_VERSION (plugin_version):
>
> 1000 * MAJOR + MINOR
>
> Let me adjust the documentation of the API.

Hmm, but then why not go back to the original suggestion merging
linker_identifier and linker_version into
a single string.  That of course puts the burden of parsing to the
consumer - still that's probably better
than imposing the constraint of encoding the version in an unsigned
integer.  Alternatively easing
parsing by separating out the version in a string would be possible as
well (but then you'd have
to care for 1.3.0-rc2+gitab4316174 or so, not sure what the advantage
over putting everything in
the identifier would be).

You usually cannot rely on a version anyway since distributors usually
apply patches.

> Richi: May I install the patch?

Let's sort out the version thing and consider simplifying the API.

Richard.

> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 9:01 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz 
> > <mailto:mli...@suse.cz>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 6/20/22 11:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> >     > I think this is OK.  Can we get buy-in from mold people?
> >
> >     Sure, I've just pinged Rui:
> >     https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/454#issuecomment-1160419030 
> > <https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/454#issuecomment-1160419030>
> >
> >     Martin
> >

Reply via email to