Re: function addresses and ld.so
- To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Camm Maguire <camm@enhanced.com>, gcl-devel@gnu.org, debian-ia64@lists.debian.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, 204789@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: function addresses and ld.so
- From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:51:46 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20030813235146.GB26172@redhat.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, davidm@hpl.hp.com, Camm Maguire <camm@enhanced.com>, gcl-devel@gnu.org, debian-ia64@lists.debian.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, 204789@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 16186.52040.953951.524746@napali.hpl.hp.com>
- References: <[🔎] E19mhZP-0000b4-00@intech19.enhanced.com> <[🔎] 16186.52040.953951.524746@napali.hpl.hp.com>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:35:36PM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> Wouldn't, e.g., LD_PRELOADing something break this assumption?
Yes. Or, indeed, just recompiling the library could result
in different PLT offsets within the DSO, even on x86.
This behaviour is completely broken. It'll never work reliably.
r~
Reply to: