[lttng-dev] Problem with UST related to dlload

Woegerer, Paul Paul_Woegerer at mentor.com
Wed May 28 11:05:58 EDT 2014

On 05/28/2014 04:30 PM, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> On 05/28/2014 04:14 PM, Woegerer, Paul wrote:
>> On 05/28/2014 03:04 PM, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
>>> So the hidden symbols are *NOT* weak at all (at least with my buggy
>>> compiler). They are just automagically defined by the linker.
>> I wrote "weak, in the sense that it can be linked without providing a
>> definition somewhere".
>> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_symbol "... When linking a binary
>> executable, a weakly declared symbol does not need a definition. ...."
> I agree with you. My initial understanding of weak symbol was probably
> wrong. I was not aware of the optional definition part, where in case
> of a missing definition the symbol assumes a value of all-zeroes.
> But that was clear to me already when I wrote my previous mail.
> Still, I don't get your point.
> In our context, what would be the point of having those symbols as weak?

There is no point. That's why I previously admitted:

> It tried your approach of removing __attribute__((weak)) and to my
> surprise this really seems to be sufficient. 

So I do think weak should be removed. We are in alignment here.


More information about the lttng-dev mailing list