Re: Unexec gurus?

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Russell McManus <russell.mcmanus@msdw.com> writes:

> "Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> 
> > > Are you statically linking in libguile.a?  I know it's a simple one,
> > > but it got me in the past.  If your dynamically linking libguile.so,
> > > that variable gets whacked.  My memory here is fuzzy, I hope this
> > > helps.
> > 
> > I had that thought too, but no, I'm not statically linking to libguile,
> > but neither is tguile (but read below for more):
> > 
> > % ldd tguile
> >         libguile.so.6 => /usr/lib/libguile.so.6 (0x4001a000)
> >         libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40088000)
> >         libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4008b000)
> >         libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400a8000)
> >         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
> 
> Give it a whirl with a statically linked libguile, and see if that
> helps (I wasn't clear in the last message).

Right -- the end of my last message describes that that worked, and then 
my next message explains that I was mistaken in thinking that tguile
dynamically linked to libguile.so (the ldd output showed it, but it was
linked against "... libguile.a -lguile ..." so it was really statically
linked, but ldd still showed a dependence.

Thanks!

Greg