This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: The Linux binutils 188.8.131.52.7 is released.
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: The Linux binutils 184.108.40.206.7 is released.
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:25:34 +0200
- Cc: Josue Amaro <josue dot amaro at oracle dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20011016201334.A31989@lucon.org> <3BCD0A64.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20011016231842.A1672@lucon.org>
- Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:18:42PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:34:44PM -0700, Josue Amaro wrote:
> > H. J.,
> > I need some information about the implementation of "-z defs" on ld.
> > Does it behave the same way that the Solaris tools do?
> > Since -z options were included for Solaris compatibility, shouldn't it
> > behave in the same way?
> It is supposed to behave the same. But I don't know what Solaris' ld
> does when symbols are missing from DSOs being linked against.
> > Should -z defs ignore the glibc missing symbols?
> The -z defs option in the GNU ld ignores symbols missing from DSOs
> being linked against. It is done on purpose. The theory is if you want
> to make sure those DSOs are ok, you should build them with -z defs. If
> you don't build them, you have to assume they are ok.
I don't know what Solaris does exactly in -z defs about the interpreter, but
at least on glibc systems it would IMHO make sense to allow satisfying
symbols for -z defs with symbols from dynamic linker as glibc relies on
this behaviour (otherwise one has to use -z defs only with explicit
/lib/ld-*.so on the command line).