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? > > Which talks about 'dlopen', I guess. In fact, when I try 'dlopen'ing > > lib.so, rather than linking to it, everything works, except for the > > following warning: > > > > /tmp/x/app.cpp:9: warning: Using 'dlopen' in statically linked > > applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc > > version used for linking > > > > So, I've three questions: > > > > 1. Why is it so that 'dlopen' works but direct linking does not. I though > > they use the same mechanism... > > They don't :) They share a lot of common code, but that's not the same > thing. Dynamic linked libraries participate in symbol resolution, for > instance. Ok... though I still don't understand what problem prevents dynamic linking when you have static libc :-( > > 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. > > 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? > 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
