[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited



On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 12:51:36PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  > I don't know, but I get the feeling it would be a problem.
> 
>  In general you enter the real of undefined behaviour.
> 
>  > On the other hand, I don't know how you'd get two different versions
>  > of a _pic.a object onto a system at the same time, anyway.  At least
>  > under the proposal I'm making, this would be impossible.
> 
>  What Jules means is that libfoo1.deb was compiled with a version of
>  libXxf86dga_pic.a and libbar1.deb was compiled with another version,
>  same API, different behaviour for whatever reason.  What happens
>  depens on the link line of the application (-lfoo -lbar vs -lbar
>  -lfoo).

The context is dlopen(), not regular linking. Anything that links
normally should be using the non-PIC form of the static libraries and
not including them in the shared/linkable object, AIUI.

Unless you pass RTLD_GLOBAL to dlopen(), I really can't see how this
could be a problem. If you do, I'm not sure of the behaviour for
resolving conflicting symbols.

One would hope that it would behave sensibly.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :                         | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-    http://www.debian.org/ | London, UK

Attachment: pgp6vLR88dW7q.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: