Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:37:45 -0500
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> > > uClibc can be a shared library, but i didnt consider that in this
> > > comparison.
> >
> > Any reason why not?
>
> It would still be bigger than busybox compiled statically against uclibc.
>
> I just attempted to make reduced library uClibc and had some problems
>
> # mklibs -d ./tmp -L/usr/i386-linux-uclibc/lib/ ./busybox
> I: Using ld-uClibc.so.0 as dynamic linker.
> I: library reduction pass 1
> 139 symbols, 139 unresolved
> I: library reduction pass 2
> 141 symbols, 8 unresolved
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/mklibs", line 469, in ?
> raise "No library provides non-weak " + symbol
> No library provides non-weak main
Ahh, that sounds like a proper testcase for the mklibs bug.
Any idea how uclibc links against main and why glibc does not have the
same problem? I guess glibc links the startsup code into every bin
while uclibcs startup code jumps into uclibc first?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
