Re: [PATCH] Introduce <elf-initfini.h> and ELF_INITFINI for all architectures

[Jim Wilson <jimw at sifive dot com>]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:34 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> So there are a few packages which have been built in such a way that
> they have a DT_INIT tag.

I looked at numactl.  In the Makefile.am I see
    -Wl,-init,numa_init -Wl,-fini,numa_fini
So the DT_INIT and DT_FINI are doing something useful, but can be
fixed by porting the package to use init_array/fini_array instead, or
maybe adding some trickiness to the linker.  But I'd rather the
package be fixed, and that the linker should give an error when -init
or -fini are used.

It is at least the intent that we don't have init/fini support for
RISC-V, and we should drop DT_INIT if we can do so without causing an
ABI break.  It looks like glibc is the only important package with
DT_INIT so maybe that is the only one we have to worry about.

> Thoughts?  Should we still label RISC-V as an !ELF_INITFINI
> architecture?

I created an ABI issue to start a discussion with other RISC-V developers
    https://github.com/riscv/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/issues/132

Jim