musl - Shall we divide ld.so from libc.so or cut the size of libc.so

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6b28321e.77f8.163806db21c.Coremail.liucheng_phx@163.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 10:01:02 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: liucheng_phx <liucheng_phx@....com>
To: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Shall we divide ld.so from libc.so or cut the size of libc.so

Hello,

We are interested in using musl to provide POSIX APIs in our system.

However, we found that the default dynamic linker /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 was just a symbolic link towards /usr/local/musl/lib/libc.so.
Meanwhile, the dynamic linker(ld.so) and the C functions lib(libc.so) in Glibc were totaly divided.

So, we are curious about the reason that you designed to put the dynamic linker in libc.so. And, is there any convenient methods to support to cut the size of libc.so?

Your earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Best Regards,
Phoenix

| |
liucheng_phx
邮箱：liucheng_phx@....com
|

签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制
Content of type "text/html" skipped

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.