chaoren added a comment. We can't patch bugs on the system libc of shipped devices, while with static linking, we can avoid all but the latest bugs in the toolchain (which I think the toolchain guys would be more receptive to fixing). labath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10887#198526, @chaoren wrote: > Using a shim results in about a 5M increase in the lldb-server binary > > because of the need to export all symbols dynamically. And still has those > two bugs (which would be in the system libs, if linked dynamically). Couldn't this be avoided somehow (with some __attribute__ magic or something). In reality, we just need one symbol, "lldb_main", or such). And if that proves unfeasible and we have to statically link, I would prefer patching bugs in older libc over patching "features" in newer ones. http://reviews.llvm.org/D10887 http://reviews.llvm.org/D10887 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
