On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:16 AM Alexander Monakov <amona...@ispras.ru> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Rui Ueyama wrote: > > > > but ignoring min_api_supported is wrong, and assuming max_api_supported > > > > 0 > > > is also wrong. It really should check how given [min; max] range > > > intersects > > > with its own range of supported versions. > > > > Currently only one version is defined which is LAPI_V1. I don't think > > LAPI_UNSPECIFIED is a version number; rather, it's an unspecified > > value. No ordering should be defined between a defined value and an > > unspecified value. If LAPI_UNSPECIFIED < LAPI_V1, it should be renamed > > LAPI_V0. > > You still cannot rely on API guarantees of LAPI_V1 when the plugin does not > advertise it (thread safety of claim_file in this particular case).
So with LAPI_UNSPECIFIED all the plugin gets is the linker name and version. Clarifying the documentation on LAPI_UNSPECIFIED might be nice, also what the expectation is on the linker when the plugin returns LAPI_UNSPECIFIED when it speficied minimal_api_supported == V1. "minimal_api_supported == LAPI_UNSPECIFIED" does not make much sense if using Ruis reading of this value? > And you still should check the intersection of supported API ranges > and give a sane diagnostic when min_api_supported advertised by the plugin > exceeds LAPI_V1 (though, granted, the plugin could error out as well in this > case). > > Alexander
