On 04/20/2017 03:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 04/20/2017 03:15 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> On Thursday 20 April 2017 06:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> Hmm interesting, I thought 'latest' would imply the last version in the >>>> sequence of versions in the map, but I guess it kinda makes sense that >>>> it is the @@ default, similar to how a static linker would pick it up. >>> >>> It might be another instance of bug 12977. At least its fix will >>> involve preferring the default version in this case. I don't know what >> >> From Michael's test case it seems like it already is preferring the >> default version. The fix would have to be to the comment that says >> prefer the oldest version for regular unversioned lookups and the >> *latest* for the dlsym lookups. >> >> That or I misunderstood what you said. > > I think it picked the default version by accident because of the way the > linker ordered the list. But I could be mistaken. How could I test your hypothesis? Just a longer chain of versions, maybe? Or oddly named version tags? Cheers, Michael >>> to do if there is no default version. We currently do not perform a >>> topological sort on the version graph to find the maximum version. >> >> My understanding is that the VERSYM section is set up in a chained >> manner and the oldest and the newest can be derived from it. > > They are chained, but the specification does not tell us whether the > version definition records are stored in a topologically sorted order in > the file. We may have to re-sort them. > > Thanks, > Florian > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
