On 4/23/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 20 April 2007 9:35 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 19 April 2007, Ahan Hsieh 謝武漢 wrote: > > > Above is a FAQ of uClibc (http://www.uclibc.org/FAQ.html#shared) > > > > > > In my understanding, if shared library is supported, > > > toolchain and loader have been improved to support it. > > > > > > Toolchin has to compile the shared library as PIC and > > > transfer it to bFLT format. Also, some tricky mechanism has to > > > been implemented. > > > > > > Loader must be able to load the shared library. > > > > > > But I don't understand why should uClibc support shared library. > > > > > > If the uClibc support shared library on MMU architecture. > > > Why it can not support on MMU less architecture? > > > > > > If the shared library is compiled as PIC and transfer to bFLT format. > > > Why should MMU be used ? > > > > > > Any other factor that I have not consider? > > > > i really dont know what your questions are here so i'm just going to ramble > > off some random statements. the ELF format is completely unlike the bFLT > > format. having ELF shared library support says nothing at all about having > > bFLT shared library support. uClibc has to implement the ldso for handling > > ELF shared libraries, the *kernel* has to implement the binfmt loader to > > handle bFLT shared library support. you cannot do normal ELF shared > > libraries on no-MMU because of the relationship between the sharable > > read-only sections (.text) and the per-process writable sections (GOT/PLT). > > i dont know what architecture you're dealing with but i doubt it supports > > FDPIC ELF on no-MMU which means you're stuck with bFLT. > > Speaking of which, does anybody know the state of the aout format? I was > pondering building an a.out format library/toolchain/mini-system (out of > historical curiosity as much as anything; it's still in the kernel) but don't > am not entirely certain how to go about it, and really know what supports it > these days. > > Rob > --
linux based dos emulators? Unless I am confusing, dosbox. Somehow, those apps are still around. Ultimate Boot Disk is my most familiar case But if the kernel can disable it, so should the libc?? As one of your menuconfig options. -- Kevin Day _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
