Yet another versioning anomaly

[Roland McGrath]

> > > I guess we should add -lc to -shared for glibc 2. But I am not
> > > sure if all the systems support it. I think ld.so in libc 5 may
> > > not be happy with it.
> > 
> > That doesn't make any sense.  Redundant dependencies happen all the time;
> > it would be impressively lossy if ld.so couldn't handle this.
> > 
> 
> I am thinking about dlopen within a binary statically linked with
> libc.a. 

Sorry, you must explain yourself more clearly and completely for me to
understand you.  In the case of a statically linked program using dlopen,
the object being linked in *must* have a DT_NEEDED for libc.so, otherwise
its refs to libc symbols will be undefined.

> Besides, -lc is used for versioned symbol in libc in this
> case. Only glibc 2 uses it.

Again, I don't understand your point.  One of the reasons to link shared
objects with -lc is indeed to get the symbol versions bound with glibc-2.1.
That is not the only reason, as we have just been discussing.