This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Thinking about libgccjit SONAME bump for gcc 5.2 (was Re: Four jit backports to gcc 5 branch)
- From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile at majumdar dot org dot uk>, jit at gcc dot gnu dot org, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:48:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: Thinking about libgccjit SONAME bump for gcc 5.2 (was Re: Four jit backports to gcc 5 branch)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1435592671 dot 13727 dot 136 dot camel at surprise> <CACXZuxcSh6ULH3tW8SgcLbvhWn-61-9W6DNbxqx_UzYgXbBiTg at mail dot gmail dot com> <1435613171 dot 13727 dot 189 dot camel at surprise> <CAOPLpQdX69F2pVbXnC84+d8doSVDN1VZA37i9GBvCbiJd0n3Og at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 18:34 -0400, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:26 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking at ways to manage libgccjit API/ABI as per this thread:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01982.html
> > by transitioning to using symbol versioning, so that the linker can tag
> > subsets of libgccjit symbols in both libgccjit and in client binaries.
>
> You don't have to bump the SONAME to introduce symbol versioning.
> glibc in the beginning didn't have symbol versioning and we wrote the
> linker and dynamic linker support so that no SONAME change was
> necessary. The idea is that unversioned symbols are satisfied by the
> oldest symbol version.
Aha! Thanks. I won't bump the SONAME, in that case, I'll just add
symbol versioning, and each new symbol will go it a new tag.