Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 12:54:52 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: static linking and dlopen On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 05:24:29PM +0200, Paul Schutte wrote: > This makes sense. > Wonder if there is a spesific reason why the browser folks does'nt produce > a statically linked browser anymore. > The browsers would be good candidates for what you mentioned about C++ and > dynamic bloat. It's because dynamic linking is part of their _development_ model. My understanding is that they lack proper functional makefiles that would facilitate clean incremental compiling and linking, so they instead break the project up into a number of separate library components, and they can then rebuild just a single component to test (since it gets dynamically loaded anyway) rather than having to rebuild the whole program from scratch. While I think this is a stupid development model, as long as they're just doing it for development, it doesn't really harm end users that much. The problem is that they don't have a "release" build mode that just links everything together the right way. It's not clear to me whether this would be easy to change; it's possible that, due to always using dynamic linking internally, a number of dependencies on dynamic-linking-related behavior (symbol interposition, accessing things via dlsym, etc.) crept into the code, and would be painful to exorcise (especially under the constraint of not breaking their dynamic builds). 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.