Yes that is the way all libraries are structured in linux so as to point to the latest version... i.e later when you upgrade to a new version say x.7.1 all you need to do is change the softlink to point to this new library version.
So when you compile you don't always need to give specific version name. -SantoshV. -- On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:15 PM, Sathya3110 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am resending this message because, I subscribed to the yahoogroup > mentioned > in this website. > > Hi I am using RHEL AS 3. GCC version 3.2.3 on a 32 bit intel processor. I > have a question regarding the C library mainly libc. > > I have been assuming that libc.a or libc.so will be present in usr/lib. So > whenever i write a makefile, i would set linker option -L to /usr/lib and > -lc and create executables. > > But sometime back i discovered that even though i set this path, i do not > think this this libc is being linked with my executable. When i gave ldd > executable-name it shows /lib/libc.so.6. When i went to /lib, i found that > its a link to libc.so.some version(i forgot the version number). > > So now i got a doubt as to what is the difference between the libc.so in > /usr/lib and the libc.so.6 present in /lib. Why are there so many > libc.so's. > When i gave strace along with the gcc command to build executable, i saw > that strace opened all the libc copies. But i did not understand much out > of > its output. Please clarify this. > > Thanks > Sathya > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Question-on-C-libraries-%28mainly-libc%29-tf4429995.html#a12637766 > Sent from the C-prog mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > -- Santosh Vernekar QLogic India. - The box said "Requires Windows 95, NT, or better", so I installed Linux. :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
