Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>> Btw, I'm of the mind that it may be questionable to retain the old v1
>>> mapfile syntax for very long. As indicated, not many people are using
>>> it, and we really shouldn't have to carry around baggage ~forever. I
>>> don't think the mapfile syntax was ever officially part of our source
>>> compatibility story. :-)
>>>
>>
>> I think that's a step too far. Yes, they're Committed interfaces and,
>> no, it would not be good to have them go away.
>>
>
> But wouldn't a tool to convert them answer the requirement for Committed
> support? I don't think the specific compiler command lines are part of
> that Committed interface, but perhaps I'm wrong. And I think I'd propose
> marking them Obsolete (at least) as part of this.
That would complicate life for teams and projects trying to support older
Solaris releases and Solaris next from the same source tree. I know some
open source projects (including older releases of X and current releases of
Mesa) have some level of support for SVR4 linker mapfiles for symbol
visibility. (Current releases of X upstream have mostly migrated to using
source code annotations for that, though they're sadly non-standard
(gcc __attribute__(visibility), Sun cc "__hidden" & "__global" keywords).)
Any project to remove support for V1 mapfiles would have to update spec2map
or properly obsolete it and fix every gate/product still using it.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
