Guillem Jover wrote:

> > I wonder if we would get all of the utility out of the tag if instead it
> > looked for shared libraries with no NEEDED metadata.  I think it's only
> > catching libraries that aren't linked with anything else, so maybe just
> > check for that explicitly?
> Yeah probably better than the status-quo. Any kind of plugin would need
> to be excluded though, because it might simply be using symbols from the
> loading binary (via -rdynamic). It would still emit false-positives for
> any library that implements language run-times or does syscall wrapping.
> So, I'd say the trade-off is worth it, as there's definitely going to
> be way less false-positives on language run-time libraries, than the
> current false-positives.

Sounds reasonable. Can someone retitle this bug to match?  (I doubt I
personally have enough shared library foo to implement this myself,

Best wishes,

     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'` /

Reply via email to