Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:45:29 -0800 (PST) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: green@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libc_r badness Message-ID: <200101291745.f0THjTK57657@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <200101290419.f0T4Jnf09875@green.dyndns.org> References: <200101290419.f0T4Jnf09875@green.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <200101290419.f0T4Jnf09875@green.dyndns.org>, Brian F. Feldman <green@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > Tell me, why can't libc_r depend on libc, and what good does libc_r > do without libc? And, if libc_r is useless without libc, why can't > it depend on libc automatically? I still see the same benefit of > having libc be modular whether or not libc_r sticks it in the ELF > library dependency section for its own use. Those automatic dependencies only work for dynamically-linked programs. Statically-linked programs wouldn't be helped by this. Generally speaking, everything is useless without libc. Our now-defunct temporary situation of using libc _or_ libc_r is the only exception I'm aware of except for special-case stand-alone components which don't execute in a normal program context. Since everything needs libc, it is not recorded as an explicit dependency. Instead, the compiler provides it automatically unless you ask it not to with -nostdlib. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101291745.f0THjTK57657>