On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:57:54PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > Yes, this is exactly what I think we should do after your description > of how FBSDprivate_1.0 exists specifically to solve some interactions > between rtld, libc, and libthr. Great.
> > This is what I meant when I said in one of the earlier emails: > > > I also noticed that chpass(1) and pwd_mkdb(8)_both directly compile in > > their own copy of the pw_scan.c source using .PATH in their makefiles. > > I wonder if doing that as the way of sharing the code between libc and > > libutil would be a better thing to do? (And presumably that would > > remove the need to have entries in the FBSDprivate_1.0 list?) > > So if we do that, are there any special considerations about removing > the __pw_scan entry (and now __pw_initpwd as well) from the private > list? Or can they just be deleted without needing to do anything else? > Does anything need to be done to make the __pw_scan symbol not directly > visible for linking to resolve external references? Remove them. FBSDprivate_1.0 is private and is guaranteed to be ABI-unstable. There is nothing to do to prevent linking against these symbols. If somebody decides to check if she inadvertently did that, it is enough to see if the FBSDprivate_1.0 namespace is referenced by the linked object, e.g. by 'readelf -V object' and see versions needed. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
