[uClibc] [patch] updated FR-V FDPIC ABI implementation

Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com
Wed Feb 18 19:55:08 UTC 2004


On Feb 18, 2004, Erik Andersen <andersen at codepoet.org> wrote:

> On Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:18:40AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> This patch has some improvements over the one I posted late last year.
>> Sorry that it took so long.

> Any I appologize for taking so long to give this a proper review.

No need to apologize.  From what you let in so far, it's quite obvious
you spent a lot of time on the review.  Thank you very much for that.

> You are going to have to fight with me a bit to get the ldso
> stuff accepted though.  :-)

mmm, fighting good :-) :-)

I'll break up the remaining bits into smaller pieces that will
hopefully be easier to swallow.

Some bits will just be tricky no matter what, such as the support for
mapping library segments at independent offsets, but we'll get to that
eventually :-)

> The ldso code should really be under a modified BSD style license
> rather than LGPL, both to match the rest of the ldso code, but
> also just to make it very clear that code using the dynamic
> linker need not be GPL'd compatible.

Hmm...  I fail to see any additional requirements the LGPL would
impose on dynamic executables.  It's not like anyone actually links
with it, so claiming anything is a derived work of it would be a tough
call.  Except for libdl, that uses some code from the dynamic loader.

I'd really prefer to stick with LGPL for code that I write, and even
more so for code that I write while on duty, for company policies.  I
might try to negotiate an exception, but I'd rather not.

> It is clear we are going to have to do something to make your
> ldso changes less intrusive.

I'll start with the syntactical changes, such as the macros that
enable the type of loadaddr to be modified, as well as those that use
it for other purposes.  It should be obvious that they don't introduce
any behavior change, and that they don't really make the code uglier.
Then a smaller patch will remain that we can talk about.

> I've been working hard recently to clean up ldso.

Yeah, it shows.  It was a major pain to update the patches that I had
for 0.9.23 to mainline :-)  But the clean ups are certainly welcome!

> Its still a
> pile of seriously ugly crap, with piles of hacks and badly
> written code sprinked all over for good measure.

Also, it seems to me that it doesn't support protected visibility at
all.  It fortunately doesn't affect FR-V in any way, but it may surely
affects other ports.  Or am I mistaken?

> So I'm not
> currently prepared to accept such a big mass of changes all in
> one go.

I actually didn't expect the acceptance ratio to be as high as I got
so far :-)

> You'll have a lot more luck spoon feeding me smaller bits cleverly
> disguised as code cleanups...

:-)  Will do.  Thanks again,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Happy GNU Year!                     oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer



More information about the uClibc mailing list