Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.80]) by krbdev.mit.edu (8.9.3p2) with ESMTP id WAA05773; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:51:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id jBU3pb0n002020; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:51:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [18.101.0.226] ([18.101.0.226]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as raeburn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.1/8.12.4) with ESMTP id jBU3pPOG015710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:51:26 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <rt-3316-15351.0.785901117878467@krbdev.mit.edu>
References: <rt-3316-15351.0.785901117878467@krbdev.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <10C91136-C453-4A8B-B874-D59B648FD023@mit.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [krbdev.mit.edu #3316] evaluate use of ELF symbol visibility pragmas for smaller code, GOT, PLT
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:51:20 -0500
To: rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2)
X-Spam-Score: 1.217
X-Spam-Level: * (1.217)
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Scanned-BY: MIMEDefang 2.42
RT-Send-Cc: 
X-RT-Original-Encoding: us-ascii
Content-Length: 574

On Dec 29, 2005, at 21:31, Sam Hartman via RT wrote:
> O, sorry, I meant to imply that we should set things up so all our
> symbol properties come from one place.  I.E. it is impossible to get
> it wrong because there is only one place the data lives so it cannot
> be inconsistent with anything.

Ah, I see.  That might be tricky, since one is markers in a header  
file related only by position to the function declarations, and the  
other is a list of symbols, but perhaps something can be worked up,  
maybe parsing the header file to generate the initial symbol list.