Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:31:22 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On R, 2008-05-30 at 20:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:13:32 +0200 > > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Talk to the upstream about this, probably getting a satisfying > > > solutio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On R, 2008-05-30 at 20:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:13:32 +0200 > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Talk to the upstream about this, probably getting a satisfying > > solution isn't that difficult. > > The solution is to use --as-needed in the same way that -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:29:26 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > --as-needed is fundamentally broken by design and causes legitimate > > code to break. > > Basically C++ quasi-standard corner cases nobody uses, that happen to > work on ELF only and that shou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: --as-needed is fundamentally broken by design and causes legitimate code to break. Basically C++ quasi-standard corner cases nobody uses, that happen to work on ELF only and that should be removed in the next revision of 0x ? Implicit plugin loading isn't exactly a san

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:13:32 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Talk to the upstream about this, probably getting a satisfying > solution isn't that difficult. The solution is to use --as-needed in the same way that -ffast-math is used: only with applications specifically designed to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
David Leverton wrote: On Friday 30 May 2008 17:29:49 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: This really is backward, solution-wise: you expect the "core application" to know enough of the plugins to link them together, but not enough to call their init functions... Why should it call their init func

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 30 May 2008 17:29:49 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > This really is backward, solution-wise: you expect the "core > application" to know enough of the plugins to link them together, but > not enough to call their init functions... Why should it call their init functions, when a static

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:29:49 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote: > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's not just the order, it also breaks things that rely on > > the .init section being called at all to register themselves with > > the core application (with -

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's not just the order, it also breaks things that rely on the .init > section being called at all to register themselves with the core > application (with --as-needed, the .so doesn't get loaded in the first > place, so it doesn't get a chance to run

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 30 May 2008 13:22:15 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > The only thing that can be broken by using --as-needed is code that > assumes the order in calling the .init sections of a set of shared > objects. Such an order is not only changed by --as-needed usage but by > any other change in t

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --as-needed breaks legitimate C++ code, I have yet to see it break > plain C code (but I could be wrong). This because C does not have constructors or static objects. I suppose I can write a couple of C files that can present the problem, but really, the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Rémi Cardona
Santiago M. Mola a écrit : On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been using it for a pretty long time now (probably a couple weeks after Diego first blogged about it) and don't have many problems at all (now), but every once in a while a version bump or a new

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --as-needed breaking legitimate code is a problem, though. I wonder if > we have that kind of code in any application in the tree and if we > have some way to detect it. You could be looking for code not supposed to work under Solaris or Windows, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Volkov wrote: > | Is there any reason why --as-needed is not enabled "by default"? > > There's still about 18 open bugs on the tracker[1] for it. You can see > how many problems it had been causing by the huge number o

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's what `emerge @preserved-rebuild` does, or do you mean something > different? I meant something different, see the rst. > Well, with preserve-libs the situation is this (using your example): > - user upgrades expat, portage keeps libexpat.so.0 arou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:55:51 +0400 Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > В Чтв, 29/05/2008 в 11:02 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò пишет: > > I'm afraid that it will turn, for complex libraries like libexpat > > and users not using --as-needed, the message telling you the > > program cannot

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Mike Auty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter Volkov wrote: | Is there any reason why --as-needed is not enabled "by default"? There's still about 18 open bugs on the tracker[1] for it. You can see how many problems it had been causing by the huge number of blocking bugs. I've been using

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Peter Volkov
В Чтв, 29/05/2008 в 11:02 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò пишет: > I'm afraid that it will turn, for complex libraries like libexpat and > users not using --as-needed, the message telling you the program cannot > be started with subtle crashes for symbol collision. Is there any reason why --as-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 29 May 2008 11:02:55 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote: > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As much as we want preserve-libs to be an all-curing magic, it's > not. When you need to replace a library you need to do so _for all its > users at once_, if you

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also it is not going to be a perfect solution against all runtime link > errors, but if enabled it should eliminate the need for revdep-rebuild > in most cases. I'm afraid that it will turn, for complex libraries like libexpat and users not using --as-ne

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-28 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:13:16 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, do you think it should be enabled by default? Yes please. :) I haven't had any problems in the couple of months i've been using it. -- fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect mips,