Dave Martin <dave.mar...@linaro.org> writes: >> To be honest I don't see the point in the more general indirected >> approach; if we >> want to be more general then I think we should use IFUNC (it would be the 1st >> use of it, which means we may have to fix some issues but hey that's what >> we're >> here for). > > Does IFUNC rely on support from libc in order to get resolved correctly? > My concern is that if so, binaries using it will silently misbehave on > older libcs.
Well, it uses new relocations, so it relies on the dynamic loader implementing those relocations correctly. But older loaders from older libcs will error out if they see that relocation. Programs wouldn't silently misbehave if your loader is too old. Static executables are responsible for resolving their own ifuncs (in the common start-up code) so they should run on any system. Richard _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
