Re: NPTL and static linking
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:55:15 +0200, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.iki.fi> wrote:
> ti, 2005-03-08 kello 13:00 -0800, Blunt Jackson kirjoitti:
> > Does anyone know if this is an intentional decision on the part of the
> > glibc/nptl crew to refuse to support static linking of the pthreads
> > library (perhaps due to ongoing development)?
>
> The glibc upstream maintainers have been against static linking for
> some years now, for reasons that seem valid, but which I forget now. I
> think there are problems with at least nss (name service switch), which
> requires dynamic linking. They don't really guarantee that static
> linking works for anything, even if doesn't use threads at all.
I am familiar with the nss issue, although that's not really relevant
to this question. The nss issue, and the related question in the FAQ
is that when statically linking to libc, there are still dynamic loads
required -- but libc handles this for the application. (Presumably by
dlopen.) I don't actually see anything in this FAQ, or in the mailing
list archives (although I haven't read every possible email) to
indicate that the glibc maintainers are against static linking in
principle. If in statically linking, glibc handled the dynamic loading
of the desired pthread library that would be an acceptable solution,
but that's not what happens here. In our distribution there *is no
way* to link to NPTL in a statically built application. It seems like
a problem. Maybe I should take this to the debian glibc maintainers. I
think there's a list for that...
-bluejack
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
Reply to: