Re: about --no-undefined option

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

Hi Lin,

> I think there is a high risk if --no-undefined option is not set for linker 
> when building a shared library. 

You probably mean the --no-allow-shlib-undefined option which is 
specific to shared libraries.

> Since if this option is not set, linker will 
> not *truly* resolve the dependent imported external symbols (to check whether
> they are *truly* exported by other modules in LIBRARY_PATH). It will raise 
> high risk when run an application with the shared library built in this manner,
> since in the runtime, the dependent external symbols may fail to load. Is my 
> understanding correct?

Yes, although "high risk" might be putting it too forcefully.  There is 
a risk yes, but there is also an implicit cooperation between the linker 
and the run-time loader.  It is normally assumed that when an 
application is linked against a shared library the user will be running 
that application in an environment where the external requirements of 
the library can be satisfied.

> I am wondering why in most cases, this option is not set for shared library 
> build for most people? Seems no setting this option has some advantages?

Yes.  There are several problems with using --no-allow-shlib-undefined. 
 Firstly the run-time libraries might not be available at link time. 
This is particularly true when cross-compiling.  If the option were 
enabled when cross-compiling a shared library it would be necessary to 
have the entire set of run-time libraries available on the build 
machine.  (Plus there is the problem that the paths to these run-time 
libraries might not match the paths as they exist on the target machine).

The second problem is that some symbols do not exist in the run-time 
libraries at all.  Instead they are provided by the run-time 
environment, which is not necessarily available to the linker.  (These 
are usually operating system related symbols).

So the current default is to allow unresolved symbols in linked in 
shared libraries.  This is not dangerous as any truly unresolved symbols 
will always be discovered when the executable is run.

Cheers
  Nick