Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:55:24 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jdp@polstra.com, mark@grondar.za, peter@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Static binaries and dlopen(3) with a new crypt(3) lib. Message-ID: <199701202055.NAA16242@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970120154002.1998B-100000@ginger.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Jan 20, 97 03:41:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > In general, this means adding the symbol references for dynamic > > relocation of dlopen, et. al., as part of the crt0.o ... effectively, > > always "dynamic linking" them into the process address space. > > > > We can discuss this in detail offline, if what I've said isn't > > clear (I suspect it is, since you're a known "compiler-head" 8-)). > > The main idea of statically linked stuff is to allow it to work in the > absence of /usr. This sounds like it's getting close to breaking that, > no? No. If the symbols are only resolved on reference, then they can be present and unresolved without impacting operation. If a reference occurs to the symbol and the backing page is not mapped because the object was not there, *then* a failure can occur. How well does dlopen() work in static binaries now? ...not at all. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701202055.NAA16242>