Re: glibc's use of gnu_indirect_function feature - is it backwardscompatible?

[Bryan Ischo <bryan at ischo dot com>]

On 08/16/11 10:40, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 8/16/2011 12:28 PM, Bryan Ischo wrote:
> > > I would personally avoid linking statically.
> > >
> > > Install the new libraries to /opt/sysroot/, and build your
> > > applications with -Wl,--dynamic-linker=/opt/sysroot/lib/ld.so.1 and
> > > the appropriate -Wl,-rpath=....
> > Thank you for the suggestion, and I appreciate the advice.  Just
> > curious - what is the harm in static linking?  Larger memory
> > footprint of the compiler, but I doubt that would even be noticed in
> > this day and age of 12 GB development systems ...
> (1) Eventually something calls dlopen and then you probably get the wrong runtime.

Are you talking about something within the compiler toolchain itself?  I 
have disabled plugins in gcc to avoid the use of dlopen there (and we 
don't use any of the gcc plugins so this has no drawback for us); I 
wonder where else dlopen might be used?  I must make a note to examine 
the built toolchain to look for references to dlopen ...

> (2) Static linking isn't static if you access the network since NSS uses dlopen.

Sorry I am unfamilar with NSS; is this something that is used by the 
compiler toolchain itself?  If so, I wonder when/if we'd ever make use 
of such functionality.

Thanks again,
Bryan