Received: from carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (STRATTON-TWO-TWENTY-THREE.MIT.EDU [18.187.5.223]) by krbdev.mit.edu (8.9.3p2) with ESMTP id SAA05136; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 9B947E0032; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:16:41 -0500 (EST)
To: rt@krbdev.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [krbdev.mit.edu #3316] evaluate use of ELF symbol visibility pragmas for smaller code, GOT, PLT
References: <rt-3316-15343.4.98900552251115@krbdev.mit.edu>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:16:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <rt-3316-15343.4.98900552251115@krbdev.mit.edu> (Ken Raeburn via's message of "Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:02:23 -0500 (EST)")
Message-Id: <tslek3wers6.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
RT-Send-Cc: 
X-RT-Original-Encoding: us-ascii
Content-Length: 268

My personal opinion is that if we can do this in a manner where we
guarantee that the symbol visibility and export lists do not conflict
then we should do so.

We should also make sure that in cases where features we need are not
available we do not use them.

--Sam