Build macOS shared modules as dylib rather than bundle
I'm splitting this out from [0]/messages/by-id/170e7e57-fe43-4e7e-8566-a96fcdf23075@eisentraut.org so that it can be tracked and referenced
separately.
[0]: /messages/by-id/170e7e57-fe43-4e7e-8566-a96fcdf23075@eisentraut.org
/messages/by-id/170e7e57-fe43-4e7e-8566-a96fcdf23075@eisentraut.org
Historically, bundles (ld -bundle) were the only file type that could
be dynamically loaded at run time on macOS (OS X at the time). These
were distinct from dynamic libraries (ld -dynamiclib (although the man
page says -dylib, but that apparently doesn't work)) that you use at
build time (-lfoo). Therefore, that platform had a strict distinction
between shared libraries and shared modules, unlike other platforms.
Over time, macOS gained the ability to dlopen dynamic libraries as
well, so this distinction is obsolete. Also, it appears that the
bundle file type is obsolescent on other Apple platforms. So, to
simplify this, change our shared library makefiles to build the
dynamic library file type for both uses. (There are still some
distinctions between the two in the build system, such as where they
are installed and how the output files are named, but they are now
internally the same file type.) Meson also has the same change
pending in its master branch, so this will eventually become
consistent.
But this change triggers a new variant of this issue:
/messages/by-id/E1o4HOv-001Oyi-5n@gemulon.postgresql.org
With the changed linker options, the symbol search order appears to
be different, and so hash_search() gets found in the OS library first.
(Historical research reveals that this name clash is not accidental.
dynahash.c was explicitly modeled after routines that existed in some
BSD OS, and continue to exist in macOS, but they don't have compatible
signatures.)
To avoid that, I suggest to use some preprocessor defines to rename the
symbols known to clash, in a way that we can continue to use the
existing API names.
I suggest that we consider the dynahash change for PG18. The Meson
change will eventually come our way, and then everything on macOS will
start crashing. So the earlier we fix this the better. Also, we can't
backpatch this because of the ABI change, so once PG18 ships the window
is over.
For the -bundle -> -dynamiclib change, I don't have any particular
urgency right now.
Attachments:
v1-0001-Avoid-symbol-clashes-of-dynahash-with-OS.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=v1-0001-Avoid-symbol-clashes-of-dynahash-with-OS.patchDownload+15-1
v1-0002-Build-macOS-shared-modules-as-dylib-rather-than-b.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=v1-0002-Build-macOS-shared-modules-as-dylib-rather-than-b.patchDownload+4-10
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
... But this change triggers a new variant of this issue:
/messages/by-id/E1o4HOv-001Oyi-5n@gemulon.postgresql.org
With the changed linker options, the symbol search order appears to
be different, and so hash_search() gets found in the OS library first.
To avoid that, I suggest to use some preprocessor defines to rename the
symbols known to clash, in a way that we can continue to use the
existing API names.
I don't love that solution. If we simply put up with this name
resolution order, we leave ourselves open to being blindsided by
any future libc addition that Apple chooses to make. The recent
strchrnul() kerfuffle is still causing me pain every day, so
maybe this is more front-of-mind than it would be at another time.
But I think it is worth our time to try to find a way to get back
the other resolution order.
I suggest that we consider the dynahash change for PG18. The Meson
change will eventually come our way, and then everything on macOS will
start crashing. So the earlier we fix this the better. Also, we can't
backpatch this because of the ABI change, so once PG18 ships the window
is over.
Arguably, changing library name resolution order is an ABI break
in itself. If we can't fix that, I think we will have to mandate
that this change happens only at a major-release boundary. Which
is going to be no fun for anybody, if meson is going to force it
on us across-the-board at some random time. We should perhaps
push back on the idea that they get to decide when and how that
changes.
regards, tom lane