 Relationships |
|
| Anonymous | Login | 2024-10-09 03:44 UTC |
| Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs |
| Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||||||
| ID | Category | Severity | Type | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||||||
| 0001847 | [1003.1(2024)/Issue8] System Interfaces | Objection | Error | 2024-08-02 01:15 | 2024-09-16 17:08 | |||||||
| Reporter | philip-guenther | View Status | public | |||||||||
| Assigned To | ||||||||||||
| Priority | normal | Resolution | Accepted As Marked | |||||||||
| Status | Interpretation Required | |||||||||||
| Name | Philip Guenther | |||||||||||
| Organization | OpenBSD | |||||||||||
| User Reference | ||||||||||||
| Section | dlfnc.h and dladdr() | |||||||||||
| Page Number | 238 and | |||||||||||
| Line Number | 8391 and | |||||||||||
| Interp Status | Approved | |||||||||||
| Final Accepted Text | Note: 0006863 | |||||||||||
| Summary | 0001847: dladdr()'s second argument should be Dl_info*, not Dl_info_t* | |||||||||||
| Description | The common opensource systems of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all have an existing dladdr() whose second argument is Dl_info*, not Dl_info_t*. | |||||||||||
| Desired Action |
Require implementations to provide Dl_info as an equivalent type to its current Dl_info_t Mark the Dl_info_t type as obsolescent, or with a future direction of removal, or whatever can be done to clean this up. ("The standard is clear, but concerns have been raised to the sponsor...") |
|||||||||||
| Tags | tc1-2024 | |||||||||||
| Attached Files | ||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Relationships |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
(0006856) geoffclare (manager) 2024-08-05 14:41 |
I am in favour of adding Dl_info as a synonym for Dl_info_t. I am not in favour of deprecating Dl_info_t (with a view to removing it in Issue 9). Since Solaris 11 has specified Dl_info_t in its dladdr() man page for many years, there will be existing code which uses it. (And there may well be more code written between now and TC1 that follows the standard as published, by people unaware of this request.) I don't see a desire to "clean this up" as sufficient justification for forcing such code to change in order for it to conform to Issue 9. I'd suggest instead that we add some application usage along these lines: Although this standard requires Dl_info and Dl_info_t to be defined as synonyms for the same type, historically many systems only defined Dl_info and did not define Dl_info_t. Consequently, choosing to use Dl_info over Dl_info_t may provide better portability to non-conforming implementations (such as those which conform to earlier versions of this standard from before dladdr() was added but which also provide dladdr() as an extension). |
|
(0006859) philip-guenther (reporter) 2024-08-11 01:46 |
That'll increase the portability over what's there, so sure. |
|
(0006860) philip-guenther (reporter) 2024-08-11 01:47 |
(It feels like there was a process miss/failure in the alteration of the original request without call-out of the alternation in the ticket, but I don't have a magic way to catch that in the future, other than "everyone reads and puts cycles on EVERYTHING". :| oh well) |
|
(0006863) geoffclare (manager) 2024-08-15 15:33 |
Interpretation response ------------------------ The standard states that <dlfcn.h> defines Dl_info_t and does not define Dl_info, and conforming implementations must conform to this. However, concerns have been raised about this which are being referred to the sponsor. Rationale: ------------- There is existing application code that uses Dl_info_t and existing code that uses Dl_info. To enable both to be ported to a standard-conforming environment with minimal change, the standard should define both types. Notes to the Editor (not part of this interpretation): ------------------------------------------------------- After page 238 line 8393 section <dlfcn.h>, add: The <dlfcn.h> header shall define the Dl_info type to be the same type as Dl_info_t. On page 238 line 8409 section <dlfcn.h>, change APPLICATION USAGE from "None" to: Although this standard requires Dl_info and Dl_info_t to be defined as synonyms for the same type, historically many systems only defined Dl_info and did not define Dl_info_t. Consequently, choosing to use Dl_info over Dl_info_t may provide better portability to non-conforming implementations (such as those which conform to earlier versions of this standard from before dladdr() was added but which also provide dladdr() as an extension). |
|
(0006864) agadmin (administrator) 2024-08-15 15:56 |
Interpretation proposed: 15 August 2024 |
|
(0006878) agadmin (administrator) 2024-09-16 17:08 |
Interpretation approved: September 16 2024 |
|
Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2024-08-02 01:15 | philip-guenther | New Issue | |
| 2024-08-02 01:15 | philip-guenther | Name | => Philip Guenther |
| 2024-08-02 01:15 | philip-guenther | Organization | => OpenBSD |
| 2024-08-02 01:15 | philip-guenther | Section | => dlfnc.h and dladdr() |
| 2024-08-02 01:15 | philip-guenther | Page Number | => 238 and |
| 2024-08-02 01:15 | philip-guenther | Line Number | => 8391 and |
| 2024-08-05 14:41 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0006856 | |
| 2024-08-11 01:46 | philip-guenther | Note Added: 0006859 | |
| 2024-08-11 01:47 | philip-guenther | Note Added: 0006860 | |
| 2024-08-15 15:33 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0006863 | |
| 2024-08-15 15:34 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => Pending |
| 2024-08-15 15:34 | geoffclare | Final Accepted Text | => Note: 0006863 |
| 2024-08-15 15:34 | geoffclare | Status | New => Interpretation Required |
| 2024-08-15 15:34 | geoffclare | Resolution | Open => Accepted As Marked |
| 2024-08-15 15:35 | geoffclare | Tag Attached: tc1-2024 | |
| 2024-08-15 15:56 | agadmin | Interp Status | Pending => Proposed |
| 2024-08-15 15:56 | agadmin | Note Added: 0006864 | |
| 2024-09-16 17:08 | agadmin | Interp Status | Proposed => Approved |
| 2024-09-16 17:08 | agadmin | Note Added: 0006878 | |
| Mantis 1.1.6[^] Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group |  |
