[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55733A3B.2040802@opensource.dyc.edu>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:21:47 -0400
From: "Anthony G. Basile" <basile@...nsource.dyc.edu>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow different paths for static and shared libraries
On 6/1/15 2:54 PM, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> 2015-06-01 3:27 GMT+02:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>:
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 06:51:42PM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:30:34 -0400
>>> Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
>>> A ld script in place of libc.so, containing "GROUP ( /lib/libc.so )",
>>> would workaround that.
>>
>> Are you sure? I think that would result in a dependency for
>> "/lib/libc.so" getting put in the binary rather than one for
>> "libc.so", and that's also a serious bug.
>
> from gentoo:
>
> # cat /usr/lib/libc.so
> /* GNU ld script
> Use the shared library, but some functions are only in
> the static library, so try that secondarily. */
> OUTPUT_FORMAT(elf64-x86-64)
> GROUP ( /lib64/libc.so.6 /usr/lib64/libc_nonshared.a AS_NEEDED (
> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 ) )
>
> btw. I am not a fan of this solution.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>> Rich
Just reading some of my backmail here and I want to clarify a point.
That file was taken from a gentoo *glibc* system not musl. On the
stage3 tarballs I push out we have:
# file /usr/lib/libc.so
/usr/lib/libc.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1
(SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped
Admittedly other .so's in /usr/lib use similar ld scripts, this is not
the case for libc.so on gentoo musl stages.
I know this is a bit of an aside, but I didn't want readers of this list
to be mislead.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
