[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180521021333.GD1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 22:13:33 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Shall we divide ld.so from libc.so or cut the size of
libc.so
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:01:02AM +0800, liucheng_phx wrote:
> 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.
The motivations are described on the wiki:
https://wiki.musl-libc.org/design-concepts.html
Rich
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.
