Shared librares dependency at compile time

LiLy xmlymt@hotmail.com
Fri Jul 27 20:30:00 GMT 2012


On the website you just sent, there are many articles by you. Really worth reading.
I've bookmarked your website. Thanks!

----------------------------------------
> From: xmlymt@hotmail.com
> To: iant@google.com
> CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Shared librares dependency at compile time
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:22:47 +0000
>
>
> 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
>
 		 	   		  



More information about the Gcc-help mailing list