This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: versioning of _Unwind_*() symbols

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:38:46PM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On 20 Apr 2004 18:24:42 -0700, Jim Wilson <> said:
>   Jim> How is this any different than what glibc does?  Code linked against
>   Jim> glibc's implementation of the ISO C and POSIX library standards can not
>   Jim> be used with anyone else's implementation of the ISO C and POSIX library
>   Jim> standards, because glibc versions symbols.  If you didn't want to use
>   Jim> the routines from glibc, you shouldn't have linked them in.
> I believe ISO C and POSIX only define APIs, not ABIs.

Thank you, David.  That was precisely my point.

The LSB, for instance, defines an ABI.  I believe it _does_ account for
symbol versioning, and there are non-glibc compliant implementations.
The C++ ABI doesn't account for symbol versioning - reasonable, since
it supports non-ELF targets - but the question at hand is, does that
cut out the possibility of versioning the symbols?

I was staying out of this discussion because I don't have a clear
answer to that question, but I do think that the answer is: yes, it
does eliminate the possibility.  How to implement this properly is

Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]