This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

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

Re: Support for smaller glibc

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 11:41:27PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <> writes:
> > Last time when I checked, glibc 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 use the same soname.
> > glibc 2.1 doesn't have all functions in 2.2. But I can compile under
> > glibc 2.2 and run against glibc 2.1 as long as I don't use those new
> > functions in glibc 2.2.
> If you mark a binary as compliant with 2.2 it is assumed that all
> symbols for glibc 2.2 are available.  That's the one test you do.  If
> you now have a stripped version of the .so file with the GLIBC_2.2
> version you get a false positive and applications crash.

I think he's speaking for bootdisks and embedded systems where things like
this wont matter.

For Debian we use the libc_pic.a archive and some black magic to recreate
a for bootdisks that only contains the symbols we actually use
in the binaries on the disk. This can save some 200-300k depending on the
programs being used (and of course the architecture).


/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  --  --  '

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