Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:11:03 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Browser plugin problems still exist in 6.2 Message-ID: <44zm9yxytk.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20061208135634.Q7518@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> (Dmitry Pryanishnikov's message of "Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:59:53 %2B0200 (EET)") References: <4577EBA8.4000703@incunabulum.net> <20061208135634.Q7518@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> writes: > Hello! > > On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Bruce M Simpson wrote: >> It still seems to be necessary to patch rtld in order to get the >> Flash plugin to work (www/linux-flashplugin7) due to the '_dlsym' >> symbol not being found. >> >> I was able to use a smaller patch to do this, see attached (although >> this may not build with the Intel C compiler). >> +__strong_reference(dlsym, _dlsym); > > I wonder what's the difference between your one-line patch and one which > I'm using: > > +__weak_reference(dlsym, _dlsym); > > Which of them is more correct? The difference between the two is just that a weak reference can be overridden by code that links into the library. In this case, we know that the outside code (the nvidia driver) doesn't define that symbol at all -- therefore, there is no practical difference between the two. When in doubt, I always use a weak symbol.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44zm9yxytk.fsf>