[AshamedCaptain]

I really don't think anyone could possibly want the _specified behavior_ of a function changing below their feet.

However, the author is unlikely to be correct here. E.g., to this day, glibc contains _multiple implementations of memcpy_ just to satisfy those executables that depend on the older, memmove-like behavior that was once part of the unspecified behavior of glibc. The only way to get the dynamic linker to choose one of the newer versions is to, well, rebuild the executable. It is inconceivable that glibc would not use symbol versioning with an actual specification change.

The behavior is practically the same as with static linking, and you still get the benefits of dynamic linking.

[throwaway892238]

People who don't understand dynamic linking are doomed to re-implement it, poorly.