On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:51:52PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > I have no idea if that is possible. I don't think that it is. If you > > > > link to libc.a, then you will not have an initialized dynamic loader, > > > > and shared libraries will not be properly loaded. > > > > > > Okay. The problem, then, is that libc docs never mention this problem. > > > > It's just an assumption. Dynamic linking can not work unless the > > dynamic loader is dynamically linked. Honestly, I have no idea what > > the output of that command is going to look like. > > Of which command?
The linking command you deleted above. > > > 2. Why 'dlopen' in static application requires shared libc? > > > > The shared library you open, if it is correctly built, will reference > > shared libc.so.6, causing libc.so.6 to be dlopen'd into your > > application. If it mismatches the included version of glibc unknown > > things will happen, and in the past, have happened. > > OTOH, I the library is built with static libc, there's no problem. Of course, > unless two statically linked copies of libc will decide to have a fight -- > and I don't know if they will. You didn't read what I said correctly. The dlopened library will be _dynamically_, not statically, linked with libc. So you end up with a static copy and a dynamic copy - boom. > > > 3. Should not the docs say that static linking to libc is not possible if > > > any dynamic libraries are used? > > > > If you had just statically linked to libc, then the result might have > > been different. Playing with -Bstatic in this way is not a good way to > > accomplish it. > > So, essentially -Bstatic is not suitable for selecting between static and > dynamic versions of given library? It is for non-system libraries. You are performing a dynamic link. -Bstatic -lfoo -Bdynamic is probably fine. It's the trailing -Bstatic and assuming what that will do to any implicitly linked libraries that is illegal. > > Try adding a libc.so script in an -L directory, like > > the existing one, but which references libc.a instead of > > libc_nonshared.a and libc.so.6. I have no idea what that will cause to > > happen, either. > > Uhmm.... > collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault] > > I think I probably should give up, and agree that even though libc probably > should not assert, I'm not using it in documented way, either. > > - Volodya > > > > > > -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
