ld-linux and ld-funcs thoughts

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 29 May 2007, sfora dim wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I was expecting that ld-linux (from glibc) and ld (from binutils)
> will have similarities. Albeit they are in two different packages
> and developers, they both do some kind of linking and mess
> with ELF (I'm talking Linux) files.
>
> I was especially expecting ld-linux to use the BFD library, too.
>
> But when I read the ld-linux sources (elf/rtld.c, dl*.c and friends)
> I found out that ld-linux and the dl functions does not use the BFD.
> They handle the ELF files directly. open, read, direct low-level
> backend-style (in BFD terminology..) work.
>
> Why is that ?

very very different goals ... glibc doesnt care about anything other than ELF

> How come there are no linking-code similarities between ld and ld-linux ?

ld from binutils for Linux ELF targets do exhibit the same behavior when it 
comes to linking and library searching.  if you find a difference, e-mail the 
binutils list

>  Why does ld-linux and ld-funcs have to implement everything
> again and not use the BFD library (or maybe a trimmed version
> of it, so we won't waste memory and time on unwanted file formats) ?
>
> why do everything from scratch ?  just for efficiency sake ?

isnt that enough ?
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20070530/646c44ad/attachment.sig>