Re: Minimal GCC/Linux shared lib + EH bug example

["David Abrahams" <david dot abrahams at rcn dot com>]

Jason, I had to write all the following exposition to understand your
reply, but then it dawned on me what you meant ;-)

I wrote, describing existing Linux/GCC semantics:
> >>> 4. lib2.so is loaded with RTLD_LOCAL. Because it's RTLD_LOCAL, the
loader
> >>> again creates a new "symbol space"; no duplicates are shared with
X.so.
<snip>

And then, describing my preferred semantics:
> >>> What I'd prefer to happen is that in step 4, the loader would use the
> >>> existing definition for any loaded symbol which is defined in or used
by
> >>> lib2's immediate dependencies. That would nicely model the concept
that
> >>> lib2.so is sharing globally with X.so but not with lib1.so, and it
seems
> >>> like the "right" solution.

Jason replied:
> >> I noticed that the readme says that the test passes on Solaris.  Does
it
> >> provide these semantics?  How about SCO?  Anyone?

Assuming by "these semantics", Jason meant my preferred semantics:
> > The test as written doesn't really tell us the answer since it uses EH
and
> > any implementation can make it a non-issue by comparing
type_info::name()
> > strings instead of addresses.
>
> I meant using gcc 3.0.4 on Solaris.

Ah yes, GCC 3.0.4 would tell us something, since it is using address
comparison. If it worked on Solaris, that would be just as good as using a
different test with that looked at addresses of template static data
members. Good question.

-Dave