From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.5 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:50:29 +0300 From: Sergey Vlasov To: devel@lists.altlinux.org Message-ID: <20091116125029.GC15838@newmaster.mivlgu.local> Mail-Followup-To: devel@lists.altlinux.org References: <200911150336.12883.ledest@gmail.com> <20091115070652.GA15510@mw.office.seiros.ru> <200911152200.02524.ledest@gmail.com> <20091115211443.GR10659@altlinux.org> <20091116000546.GA32432@wo.int.altlinux.org> <20091116004438.GU10659@altlinux.org> <20091116094601.GB15838@newmaster.mivlgu.local> <20091116104828.GB32099@wo.int.altlinux.org> <20091116113659.GV10659@altlinux.org> <679044850911160401m409da414i4dd1a74e1f23a262@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <679044850911160401m409da414i4dd1a74e1f23a262@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [devel] symbols into dependencies X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:50:45 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 03:01:03PM +0300, Damir Shayhutdinov wrote: > > On the other hand, we can simply assume that symbols should not be moved > > across the libraries. =A0The worst thing that can happen then (if a sym= bol > > does move) is that we need to rebuild a bunch of packages, only to > > relink their binaries and update dependencies. Do we care about binary-only apps which we cannot rebuild - would their repackaging in the RPM form become impossible? > Have you thought about C++ libraries and their mangling? And the fact > that many of C++ exported symbols in such libraries are not, in fact, > the part of the API, they are only exported because C++ cannot control > their visibility on the ELF symbol level. I'm talking about private > methods of classes. Private methods can still be part of the public ABI - e.g., if a public inline calls a private non-inline method, the resulting executable will have a reference to the "private" symbol. C++ libraries have yet another property which is unusual for C libraries - they typically use weak symbols. --oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLAUqVW82GfkQfsqIRAk8KAKCR725hnhSZgloGxassOdLSm/3PAQCeItI8 pZMo9TNB2cz8QQAL1v+g/Jk= =ZjLZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7--