https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33577
--- Comment #42 from Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de> --- (In reply to Ali Bahrami from comment #36) > I apologize for not spotting this last week when we > first discussed this, but I think the Solaris docs > do spell out the details for index 0 pretty thoroughly. We noted that here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-November/145608.html with reply here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-November/145643.html . > The third bullet ("An undefined global symbol") covers the > situation we've been discussing, and it seems this discussion > has been retracing those steps. > > This text is not found in the S9 version of the Solaris LLM > references earlier, nor in the Solaris 10 FCS version from 2005, > but is found in the Solaris 11 FCS version from 2011. That's why > I didn't spot it earlier --- my response was based on reading > the cited link, and clearly I should have looked at the latest > docs as well. However, there's a decent chance that I wrote this > addition (between 2005 and 2011, when S11 shipped, so 16-20 years > ago), so it's probably useful that we've independently verified > what it's saying. I don't think any independendness comes into play here. The ones arguing for changing the GNU versioning implementation ultimately always come from reading the current Solaris docu, i.e. with the clarifications of NDX_LOCAL. Btw, people also try to read into it that it's fine to use NDX_LOCAL also for _defined_ symbols. AFAICS even the clarification in the Solaris>=11 docu only accepts that when there's no verdef section in the defining file. What's your take on that? Is a NDX_LOCAL, defined STB_GLOBAL symbol in a file that has the verdef section (GNU or Sun variant) available to resolve against, or not? Should it be? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
