Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Птн, 30/05/2008 в 20:28 -0700, Brian Harring пишет:
>> Either way, basically it's coming down to if gentoo wants to follow 
>> the definition of 'academic' right, or 'pragmatic' right. Exempting 
>> ciaran, vote seems to be pragmatic.
> 
> Well, although I've asked about problems with having --as-needed by
> default, I'd better go with academic. C++ is quite common language to
> ignore its design problems and in the end it's not hard to define
> LDFLAGS in make.conf.
> 

To clarify:

- static initializers (as in __attribute__((constructor), so no, it 
isn't a C++ only feature) have nothing wrong with --as-needed.

- ugly code that refers to undefined symbols that are resolved to ones 
from the main binary and written in the constructor is broken already in 
  systems not allowing undefined refs.

- you don't have guarantees about the order in witch the .init sections 
are parsed and constructor function are called, they can be called in 
parallel and you have no means to have a predictable behavior, all you 
know is that everything will be called right before main() or as the 
first thing in dlopen().

- doing such stuff is uncommon since it isn't the simplest thing to do, 
doesn't work in every place, you have to be particular perverse and 
convoluted even to think about this.

- making such thing go away is good for security, maintainability and 
sanity.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list