Austin Group Defect Tracker

Aardvark Mark III


Viewing Issue Simple Details Jump to Notes ] Issue History ] Print ]
ID Category Severity Type Date Submitted Last Update
0001294 [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2] Shell and Utilities Comment Omission 2019-10-01 08:03 2019-10-02 07:38
Reporter Konrad_Schwarz View Status public  
Assigned To
Priority normal Resolution Open  
Status New  
Name Konrad Schwarz
Organization Siemens AG
User Reference
Section c99
Page Number https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/c99.html [^]
Line Number https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2008edition/utilities/c99.html#tag_20_11_13_03 [^]
Interp Status ---
Final Accepted Text
Summary 0001294: POSIX recognizes the existence of dynamically loadable, executable object files, but provides no way of producing them.
Description The interface specified in https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2008edition/basedefs/dlfcn.h.html [^] allows run-time access to "executable object files", but I could not find
a conforming way to produce them.
Desired Action Add _POSIX_SHARED_OBJECT and _POSIX_V8_SHARED_OBJECT_{CFLAGS,LDFLAGS} options to getconf analogously to the "Threaded Programming Environment" table
in c99.

For the GCC toolchain, I would expect _POSIX_V8_SHARED_OBJECT_CFLAGS to be
-fpic and ..._LDFLAGS to be -shared.
Tags No tags attached.
Attached Files

- Relationships

-  Notes
(0004586)
GarrettWollman (reporter)
2019-10-01 17:14

There is no portable way to generate dynamically loadable object files because some dynamic linker implementations require that an exhaustive list of exported symbols be provided by the programmer (distinct from the symbol table in the object files), or require other similar interface information that cannot be deduced from the object files alone.
(0004587)
shware_systems (reporter)
2019-10-01 20:05

From c99 Description:
"If there are no options that prevent link editing (such as -c or -E), and all input files compile and link without error, the resulting executable file shall be written according to the -o outfile option (if present) or to the file a.out."

When this is true, what makes such an executable file a program is the presence of main(), either from a provided object or static library, or the one in standard libraries libl or liby. If main() is not found the file is a library that is expected to be useable by dlopen() the same as dlopen(NULL, flags) references the current program file.

This is portable without needing any extra command line flag. The wording of dlfcn.h and interfaces could emphasize better that what is allowed there as implementation-defined is in addition to the above expectation, not a substitute.

Also, if an external linker is used, it is the responsibility of the compilation phase to synthesize from the input .o and .c sources the information that linker requires. If the compiler cannot do this, necessitating the maintenance of files like an exports list, they are disqualified from being considered conforming, and the object format is suspect for being insufficently sophisticated to begin with. The caveat in the Input Files section for c99 that additional formats may be defined I see as for optional data, not for any additional requirements for producing a valid executable.
(0004589)
alanc (reporter)
2019-10-01 22:22

For platforms which support multiple compilers, how would you specify to getconf which compiler you want the flags for? For instance, on Solaris, _POSIX_V8_SHARED_OBJECT_LDFLAGS would need to be -G for Studio compilers but -shared for GNU & LLVM compilers.
(0004591)
Konrad_Schwarz (reporter)
2019-10-02 07:38

Re Note: 0004586: are these dynamic linker implementations relevant to POSIX? (Can POSIX assume an "ELF-only" world at this point?).

But this is a fair point -- I recognize that any serious engineering
organization will invest in far more in-depth handling of toolchain
issues that the generic getconf interface offers. OTOH, this is
true for c99 in general, so conversely, should c99 (or any hypothetical
successors like c11) be retired?

I would argue no; I think it is beneficial to have a standardized
(fairly simple) interface to the compilation tool chain, which,
at the least, gives you a starting point for platform (or toolchain)
dependent optimizations.

Re bugnoteƖ0004589: You would use whatever non-standard mechanism
that platform offers -- if any -- to map the standard c99 utility
to one of the compilers the platform supposedly supports.

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2019-10-01 08:03 Konrad_Schwarz New Issue
2019-10-01 08:03 Konrad_Schwarz Name => Konrad Schwarz
2019-10-01 08:03 Konrad_Schwarz Organization => Siemens AG
2019-10-01 08:03 Konrad_Schwarz Section => c99
2019-10-01 08:03 Konrad_Schwarz Page Number => https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/c99.html [^]
2019-10-01 08:03 Konrad_Schwarz Line Number => https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2008edition/utilities/c99.html#tag_20_11_13_03 [^]
2019-10-01 17:14 GarrettWollman Note Added: 0004586
2019-10-01 20:05 shware_systems Note Added: 0004587
2019-10-01 22:22 alanc Note Added: 0004589
2019-10-02 07:38 Konrad_Schwarz Note Added: 0004591


Mantis 1.1.6[^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker