On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:56:42PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>On Wednesday 29 October 2008 14:49:59 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a bit puzzled about ldd, i admit:
>>
>> Not sure if running the binary is such a good idea. Thoughts?
>
>Sounds like you're using the glibc version of ldd, which has always run
No, i'm using uClibc's ldd.
>binaries when trying to figure out what they link to. (This is one of the
>reasons ld-linux.so needed the executable bit set, I forget the details and
>archive.org is being stroppy. I'm fairly certain I'm not a spambot, but try
>telling them that...)
>
>The uClibc version worked like readelf last I checked, and it would be
>criminally stupid to change that.
Look at utils/ldd.c::find_dependancies()
#ifdef __LDSO_LDD_SUPPORT__
if (we could potentially run the binary)
execle(...)
I'm resisting to change those "dependancy" to dependency for now..
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
