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.