[PATCH] D18269: [ELF] - -rpath-link "implemented"

Rafael EspĂ­ndola via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Mar 22 13:03:42 PDT 2016

>> Where is that documented and who's depending on that?
> "Shared Object Dependencies" in the original ELF specification.


That one?

> depth-first search only really matters for copy relocations when you
> have more than one definition, which is likely a bug in first place. But
> scanning all nodes in the tree before throwing an undefined error
> matters quite a bit. A lot of software depends a lot and has to be
> "fixed" when dealing with one of the (broken, IMO) newer versions of
> binutils.

I have seen the argument before of backward compatibility, but never
that it was actually better semantics. Can you expand a bit on why you
prefer it?

The arguments I have seen against it is that foo.so using bar.so is an
implementation detail. If an image format uses zlib for compression,
it should be free to one day change that. If any client of that .so
can for ever assume that zlib is used then a .so can never drop a


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list