Re: ld, ld.so and -symbolic

[hjl@nynexst.com (H.J. Lu)]

> 
> > > The question has to do with the -symbolic option that gcc man pages say is
> > > a linker option, but ld does not seem to support.  My understanding on sun
> > > solaris is that the -Bsymbolic option  allows me to have two, or more, shared 
> > > objects that can have there own global variables, that won't conflict with 
> > > other variables of the same name.  The question I have is, is this supported,
> > > can it be supported, when, how, how much?
> 
> You'd have to make sure that 1) all symbols get resolved, i.e. no
> references to undefined remain in the shared object, and 2) all
> remaining relocation records are of the type "relative to load address".
> The latter is a hard requirement if you have to bootstrap a la "ld.so".
> 
> You'll need to have a library handy from which you can pull in all
> required PIC modules, e.g. say "libc_pic.a" (in stead of "libc.so.x.y").
> 

Are we talking about the same thing? BTW, you don't have to use
-Bsymbolic when you build ld.so.

-- 
H.J. Lu
NYNEX Science and Technology, Inc.			hjl@nynexst.com
-----
    -B symbolic  In dynamic mode only, when  building  a  shared
                 object,  bind  references  to  global symbols to
                 their definitions within the object, if  defini-
                 tions  are  available.   Normally, references to
                 global symbols within  shared  objects  are  not
                 bound  until  runtime,  even  if definitions are
                 available, so that definitions of the same  sym-
                 bol in an executable or other shared objects can
                 override the object's own definition.   ld  will
                 issue  warnings  for undefined symbols unless -z
                 defs overrides.