> >
> Happy to hear that it works in general (would be pretty bad if it
> didn't...). I'm more concerned about whether we're currently
> specifying everything completely, or unknowingly exploiting
> overlinkage.
>
> I guess the only way to find out is to build and test everything with
> that option included.
>
> I just did two quick tests:
1) .so that overrides a global symbol (strstr in this case)
2) .so with a global object that has a constructor/destructor
#1 worked, #2 failed (the .so was removed).
If #1 failed I'd say we can't default to it. Not sure how important #2 is,
but it's something that could definitely cause problems that would be
difficult to track down.
(text/plain)