This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Shared librares dependency at compile time


Hi Ian,

Thanks for sharing!

Just found a discussion on GNU ld and gold.
http://code.google.com/p/mclinker/wiki/RelatedWork
 
Best Regards,
Ly
----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:10:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: Shared librares dependency at compile time
> From: iant@google.com
> To: xmlymt@hotmail.com
> CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:56 PM, LiLy <xmlymt@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Glad to get your confirmations. Further more, could you please give me some links that introduce ld internals?
>
> I'm fond of http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/38 and subsequent entries.
>
> > BTW, I guess gold means google ld. Regarding 1.1), I suppose gold will also work in similar way, since the obj/lib file formats are same.
>
> gold isn't google ld, it's just gold. it's a new linker that is part
> of the GNU binutils.
>
> There is a key difference between GNU ld and gold in this area. If
> you link against liba.so, and liba.so has a DT_NEEDED entry pointing
> to libb.so, then GNU ld will attempt to replicate the dynamic linker's
> search path and find libb.so. gold will not do that. Because of
> that, GNU ld by default will warn about undefined symbols in liba.so,
> while gold by default will not.
>
> It is quite rare for this difference to actually matter.
>
> Ian
 		 	   		  


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]