On 19 October 2016 at 14:16, Jonathan Gray <j...@jsg.id.au> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:29:47AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 19 October 2016 at 01:05, Jonathan Gray <j...@jsg.id.au> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 04:24:20PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> On 18 October 2016 at 00:58, Jonathan Gray <j...@jsg.id.au> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> >> On 17 October 2016 at 16:39, Eric Engestrom >> >> >> <eric.engest...@imgtec.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Monday, 2016-10-17 22:53:20 +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 17 October 2016 at 10:53, Eric Engestrom >> >> >> >> > <eric.engest...@imgtec.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On Sunday, 2016-10-16 16:38:35 +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> On OpenBSD try to dlopen 'libglapi.so', ld.so will find >> >> >> >> > >> the highest major/minor version and open it in this case. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> Avoids '#error Unknown glapi provider for this platform' at >> >> >> >> > >> build time. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Gray <j...@jsg.id.au> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > LGTM, and I guess the other *BSD will want the same since >> >> >> >> > > 7a9c92d0 broke >> >> >> >> > > them too. >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > I'm not 100% sure about that. OpenBSD (unlike other BSD) did bump >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > major when the ABI breaks due to 'internal' changes - think of >> >> >> >> > off_t/time_t on 32 vs 64bit systems and alike. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Unlike Linux kernel/distros, BSDs tend to be more relaxed when in >> >> >> >> > comes to ABI, I believe. Don't quote me on that one ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> OpenBSD tends to favour simplified interfaces over backwards >> >> >> >> compatiblity >> >> >> >> and is more like a research system in that respect. As the kernel >> >> >> >> and userland are one source tree ioctl compat largely doesn't exist. >> >> >> >> System calls get deprecated and removed over the course of a few >> >> >> >> releases. >> >> >> >> So we didn't go through the pain of duplicated systems calls for >> >> >> >> off_t >> >> >> >> as mentioned, and don't go in for symbol versioning. Just >> >> >> >> major.minor >> >> >> >> library versioning, which is roughly symbol removals, major crank, >> >> >> >> symbol additions minor crank. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I believe FreeBSD tends to go in for backwards compatibility more >> >> >> >> but am not familiar with the details. They also have a different >> >> >> >> ld.so. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps an else case for 'libglapi.so.0' would be appropriate for >> >> >> >> all >> >> >> >> the other various unices instead of the #error ? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yeah actually, I'm thinking reverting this hunk of 7a9c92d0 might be >> >> >> > a better, >> >> >> > to avoid the potentially huge list of every *BSD and other Unix: >> >> >> > >> >> >> Fwiw I've intentionally added the hunk since I was a bit lazy to check >> >> >> if the BSD(s?)/Solaris/others have bumped the major locally. Having a >> >> >> closer look that's not the case, so indeed we can add revert to >> >> >> libglapi.so.0 in the else statement. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan, how about we with the above instead ? >> >> > >> >> > At the moment OpenBSD has libglapi.so.0.2 for Mesa 11.2.2. >> >> > New versions of Mesa add new shared_dispatch_stub_* symbols, >> >> > which the minor would crank for. >> >> > >> >> Don't think we [intentionally] added any symbols for a long while. >> > >> > Comparing 11.2.2 libglapi and the latest Mesa I see: >> > >> > Dynamic export changes: >> > added: >> > shared_dispatch_stub_1323 >> > shared_dispatch_stub_1324 >> > shared_dispatch_stub_1325 >> > shared_dispatch_stub_1326 >> > shared_dispatch_stub_1327 >> > shared_dispatch_stub_1328 >> > shared_dispatch_stub_1329 >> > >> > Perhaps this is unique to the non-tls dispatch case though. >> > >> Seems like it. Either way, the symbols are exported unintentionally, >> since they are not part of the glapi API and are not used outside of >> libglapi.so. >> >> Any patch(es) to hide them will be gladly appreciated. > > It seems only the arch specific glapi asm stubs get it right? > > I manually extracted the libglapi from debian's Mesa 12.0.3 for amd64 and > armhf > and the shared_dispatch_stub symbols show up with debian's armhf library (but > not amd64). > > http://ftp.au.debian.org/debian/pool/main/m/mesa/libglapi-mesa_12.0.3-1_armhf.deb > > $ nm usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libglapi.so.0.0.0 | fgrep ' T > shared_dispatch_stub' | wc -l > 1324 Using a "plain" nm lists all the symbols - internal and exported. The internal ones (which seems to be the one listed above) disappear as you strip the binary (what I was checking here).
To check only the exported ones you'd want either of the following (admittedly the C is only to demangle C++ symbols). $ nm -CD --defined-only foo.so $ objdump -CT foo.so Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
