On Saturday 09 September 2017 14:49:43 fredvs wrote: > Re-hello. > > Huh, in previous mail, at end please read this: > > The last war would be "What is better: libdl.so.2 or ld-linux.so.2 ? > > Could it be possible to imagine a different dynlibs.pas ? > Actual dynlibs.pas is using libdl.so.2. > Could it be possible to use ld-linux.so.2 instead (with correspondent > methods, of course) ? > I do not understand, ld-linux.so.2 uses tables and library names built in in binary by "ld" at compile time. libdl.so.2 (actually libc.so.6) uses library and function names provided as strings by the application at runtime. I assume internally dlopen()/dlsym() use functions from ld-linux.so.2.
> And for static linking that already uses ld-linux.so.2, > if if the "external" bug is fixed, a custom name/path of the library > may be used and so have the advantage of a "dynlibs" way. > Static linking means combining *.o and *.a files by "ld" at compiletime and does not use libraries of the target system at runtime. Please do not confuse "static" linking and "dynamic" or better named "shared" linking. "shared/dynamic" linking comes in two flavors, either loading by ld-linux.so.2 using link information stored in executable by "ld" at compiletime or by explicit calls of dlopen()/dlsym() in user code. Neither of them is named "static" linking. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list mseide-msegui-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
