Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 08/26/2002 20:34:54
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 08:20:05PM +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> > Why should using dlopen() require that the executable is dynamically
> > linked? Requiring this is, imo, broken. If using dlopen() is the
> > reason to go to a dynamically linked /bin, then fix dlopen() instead.
> dlopen() CANNOT be fixed in this case:
> 1. In ELF, the kernel runs a dynamic executable my mapping the
> interpreter (ld.elf_so), and passing info about the program
> to it. The interpreter then maps stuff, and jumps into the
> 2. The interpreter provides dlopen(), etc.
> A statically-linked executable has no interpreter, and thus has no
Thank you, you just answered a question I wrote 10 seconds ago. :-)
However, what's preventing us from writing a separate dlopen() function
that can live in the statically linked binary?
Does the interpreter do or know things that we cannot possibly know
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol