[PATCH] ldso/powerpc: add support for protected symbols

Gustavo Zacarias gustavo at zacarias.com.ar
Thu Oct 28 13:12:26 UTC 2010


On 10/28/10 10:01, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:

>> Did a complete patch get out of it?
>> Some architectures (arm, sh, i386) went with their own fix after/before
>> that discussion.
> 
> Hi you're right, but thinking at it again, a generic solution should be better.
> 
> We were in hurry to fix new nptl for sh, so why we fixed it in a the
> specific part.
> Now, looking at the Jocke's work, I've seen that he added an extra sym
> argument, that it is exactly
> we we needed for the prelinking.
> So I think tha tmoving toward a unified implementation for protected
> symbol will be usefull
> for more stuff.

I agree that common is the best solution, however...

>> It's a lingering issue that makes nptl not very usable in some scenarios.t
> 
> you're right, but finding free time is sometimes difficult.

I'm not finger pointing, just saying that it could be fixed per
architecture until the common code/fix is panned out.
My point is that the patch will need to be rebased for all architectures
that've got the fix already.
I can do some heavy workouts for arm & powerpc (for real hardware).
Sorry if it was misinterpreted, didn't want to imply anything by
pointing it out.
Regards.


More information about the uClibc mailing list