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.