protect __dso_handle

[Ulrich Drepper]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

> But I don't follow your logic.  The idea behind autoconf is that it's
> easy to go to a new system because you don't constrain yourself.  For
> example, if only version 2.2.9 or later of the Linux kernel has a
> function `foo', we just use autoconf to define `HAVE_FOO'.  That way,
> if another system (say Solaris) implements `foo' we're all set.  It
> doesn't make sense to call it `HAVE_LINUX_FOO' because there's nothing
> inherently Linux-specific about `foo' -- it just happens that only
> Linux has implemented `foo' at this point.

This works mostly for C functions but can easily go wrong for these
pseudo ops.  If you take a look at all the different assemblers you'll
see a multitude of pseudo ops and I will almost bet there is a .hidden
somewhere.  With C tests you have prototypes etc to make sure you get
the right function, with pseudo ops you can go wrong easily.

> Why choose a name that will become confusing when another assembler
> implements this feature?

It can be renamed.

> But, I think the chances of another assembler accepting this syntax,
> but having different semantics for it, are slim.

I don't think so.  The syntax used is so common since there is not so
much room for variation.  Besides, if you take a look at the
configure.in file you'll see that the tests are currently only run for
gas.

-- 
---------------.      drepper at gnu.org  ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------