This is a flag day for build machine maintainers, and a
heads up for everyone else. My fix for

    6916796 OSnet mapfiles should use version 2 link-editor syntax

converts all existing mapfiles in the ON workspace to use the new
version 2 mapfile syntax introduced into snv_135 with

    6916788 ld version 2 mapfile syntax
    PSARC/2009/688 Human readable and extensible ld mapfile syntax

Build machines must be running onnv build 137 or newer in order to
build the ON consolidation.

Going forward, all OSnet mapfiles must use the version 2 syntax.
The mapfilechk tool has been modified to enforce the version 2 mapfile
requirement. This is a change to the onbld tools. Please update
the build tools (onbld) on your build systems.

This putback relaxes a previous requirement that all mapfiles
in ON carry the following comment:

 #
 # MAPFILE HEADER START
 #
 # WARNING:  STOP NOW.  DO NOT MODIFY THIS FILE.
 # Object versioning must comply with the rules detailed in
 #
 #       usr/src/lib/README.mapfiles
 #
 # You should not be making modifications here until you've read the most 
current
 # copy of that file. If you need help, contact a gatekeeper for guidance.
 #
 # MAPFILE HEADER END
 #

From this point forward, only mapfiles that contain a SYMBOL_VERSION
mapfile directive are required to have this comment. Other mapfiles do
not affect ELF versioning, and therefore need not contain this warning.

Note that if you use an old copy of the onbld tools on a workspace
containing this putback, you may see mapfilechk messages of the form:

  Warning: No MAPFILE block in file XXX

when doing 'hg nits' or 'hg pbchk'. This is because the old tools do
not understand version 2 mapfile syntax, and do not contain the test
for the relevant directives. You should update your build tools at your
convenience, but these warnings may be safely ignored.

Please direct any questions to me. Thank you.

- Ali
_______________________________________________
on-discuss mailing list
on-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/on-discuss

Reply via email to