-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 185
Rewrite outdated backend notes in lib.rs #481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
+12
−18
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wouldn't assume these cases are rare and turn this into a listing of facts about why the C implementation may be useful. Remove
rarewould already do it for me.Further, I'd love it if there was a way to mention typical problem with using any backend. What comes to mind is duplicate symbols, and issue even Rust backends have today, maybe along with a hint at workarounds. The trigger for this paragraph was me thinking
zlib-ng-compatwas probably good for that, but I wasn't sure.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Based on the experiments I've run it seemed like zlib-rs did not result in duplicate symbol issues. So you should be able to use the zlib-rs backend without worrying about what other C zlib flavors may be present, and the whole "use C to avoid duplicate symbols" angle should no longer be a thing.
I am not 100% certain about that though, it's been a while. I'll double-check.
Bit-identical output and symbol conflicts are the only reasons to use C backends, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I cannot actually reproduce the linker errors due to conflicting symbols with my old setup.
@folkertdev do you know if zlib-rs would cause symbol conflicts if you try to link it into a binary that also links zlib?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it would cause conflicts right now, but we've added trifectatechfoundation/zlib-rs#322 and will release a new version soon where there should not be any conflicts so long as
export-symbolsis disabled (which is the default)