[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: link problems
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
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 Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |