Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Ben Harris <email@example.com>
From: Noriyuki Soda <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/27/2002 04:25:27
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:52:59 +0100, Ben Harris <email@example.com> said:
> As I understand it, the major problem is that there's no sensible way for
> the dlopen()ed object to get at symbols in the statically-linked program.
> This means it has to end up with its own version of any libraries that it's
> linked against, and in particular with its own version of all their global
> variables. In the case of libc, this includes things like errno, the malloc
> arena, stdout and so forth.
And even if there is a way to get such symbols. There is a still
Unfortunately, migrating to dynamic linked base system doesn't
completely solve this problem (althought it certainly decrease the
problem). The only way to correct this problem is to unsupport
statically linked binaries (e.g. rm /usr/lib/lib*.a). And that's
what I don't like. ;)
Anyways, as written by Giles Lean in above message, supporting
dlopen() for static binaries is not really worth doing.