This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: static shared library vs static linking
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at zembu dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: static shared library vs static linking
- From: koundinya at teil dot soft dot net
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:21:24 +0530
- cc: squalls_tang at 263 dot net
Regarding static shared libraries, this is what I have read in a
book devoted to Linkers and Loaders by levine:
With Static Shared libraries, symbols are still bound to
addresses at link time,
but library code is not bound to the executable until run time.
( Of course, with Dynamic shared libraries, both are delayed
until runtime).
A static linked shared library can't change very much without
breaking the
programs that it is bound to. Since the addresses of routines
and data in the
library are bound into the program, any changes in the addresses
to which the
program is bound will cause havoc.
Koundinya
-> "YU Tang" <squalls_tang@263.net> writes:
->
-> > I am really confused by these two termilogy.It's
-> > easy to understand how static linking works;but
-> > what about static shared library?
->
-> I don't know what a static shared library is either.
->
-> Are you asking about a dynamic shared library?
->
-> Ian