On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 10:29:02PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 29.02.2020 21:58, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 07:36:00PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > >> On 29.02.2020 19:00, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > >>>> Module Name: src > >>>> Committed By: kamil > >>>> Date: Sat Feb 29 04:27:01 UTC 2020 > >>>> > >>>> Modified Files: > >>>> src/doc: CHANGES > >>>> > >>>> Log Message: > >>>> ld.elf_so(1): Implement DT_GNU_HASH > >>> > >>> Was this discussed anywhere? > >> > >> In the toolchain circles, for some time now (2+ years). > >> > >> It was one of the pending task to modernize our ELF loader on par with > >> at least FreeBSD. > > > > Can we please stop with this "we must need XXX to be on par with YYY" > > nonsense without actually looking at the details first and discuss them? > > Practically speaking, there was moderately little discussion about the > > actual design choices of DT_GNU_HASH, especially some of its deficits. > > Especially because we already have some important improvements in our > > tree *without breaking compatibility*. Especially the size claims are > > questionable at best as justification are weak at best. It also ignores > > that by design DT_GNU_HASH conflicts with at least one platform ABI. > > > > Joerg > > > > Just keeping DT_GNU_HASH support around does not break compat. Full > replacement of HASH algorithm would break compat but nobody wants to do > it (at least in NetBSD).
Can you please stop speaking for the NetBSD community? Seriously, that alone makes me want to just /dev/null all messages. "Keeping DT_GNU_HASH around" is funny, given that it just got added without any discussion. Joerg
