On 5/3/26 01:00, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Friday, 1 May 2026 22:59:24 Pacific Daylight Time Simon Schröder via Std-
> Proposals wrote:
>> I am also not sure if the standard says anything about shared libraries.
>> (Maybe someone else can confirm this.) And you are talking about very niche
>> cases where the function signature is not known at compile time. Because as
>> long as the function signature is known (in many cases even when calling
>> into a shared library) we can use other existing techniques to wrap the
>> function call (especially if we don’t intercept functions but have to
>> change the call site anyway).
>
> It doesn't say anything.

The standard tries hard not to prevent use of shared libraries
(or of statically-linked libraries, for that matter) by simply
not saying anything about them.

> I doubt there would be any way to add sufficient
> description of them to the standard in less than 5 years for this feature to
> have a meaningful description. So this incredibly niche feature would be
> standardised as "it is implementation defined whether this intercepts
> anything".
What would happen with the feature on an implementation that does
static linking only, or partially dynamic and static linking? If the
feature is not implementable there, the motivation for standardizing
it erodes even more.

Jens