Re: link problems

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:40:24AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:28:03AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 07:30:14PM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> > > On Fri 04 Oct 2013 at 18:51:26 +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > > > Does adding: --no-copy-dt-needed-entries to the link line fix the 
> > > > problem
> > > > for you? Perhaps we should consider making this the default again...
> > > > 
> > > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00131.html
> > > 
> > > I think the new way is cleaner. It is better to have dependencies
> > > explictly stated.
> > 
> > No, it is broken. It has been discussed before.
> 
> Can you please summarize the arguments, or include concrete links to
> the "before"?

1) I have library containing a lot of functions and I decide to split it
   into several parts. The user callable functions end up separated but
   I don't want to make the split (or the presence of the other libraries)
   visible to users.
   It might be that the install copies/symlinks the library optimised
   for the current cpu.

2) I write a library with an alternate implementation of one of the functions
   in a standard library with a DT_NEEDED entry for the renamed standard
   library.
   Having moved all the files I still want to be able to compile programs.

Note that since the run-time linker makes all the symbols available
you can't have multiple copies of the same library loaded anyway.

The really oughgt to have added a new variant of DT_NEEDED that indicated
that the symbols should not be made visible.

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost