This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 17:12, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > You imply that your operating system is GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux does > permit executing shared libraries. But as far as I know it does not > require executing them. If you don't like the results of executing a > shared library, then don't execute it. No, Linux doesn't _require_ you run shared libs. Except for ld.so, for dynamic executables. That didn't answer my letter however, nor did that banal diatribe about how constructors are implemented answer anything either. The -entry option of the linker is more relevant than the -init option here. The issue I raised with much humility, mind you, was whether it was proper behaviour of the linker to define an entrypoint when the programmer never intended for there to be one. And for the sake of argument whether it would not be better behaviour for the execve syscall to return that unused ELIBEXEC macro on ET_DYN objects without entrypoints. The current behaviour that the call results in a segfault isn't very descriptive. Though I must admit, I am not sure why the dynamic loader tries to execute at address 1. I apologize to subscribers if this is offtopic. Binutils people can see the original question at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00465.html Henry. -- Henrý Þór Baldursson Software Developer FRISK Software International tel.: +354 540 7425 fax.: +354 540 7401
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |