On 06/26/2018 07:37 AM, Walter Harms wrote: > there is no static version of gnu-libc.
There is absolutely a libc.a provided by GNU libc, and you can statically link it on account of it's a static library. I'm looking at it right now, along with the binaries which are, successfully, statically linked to it. > But i agree there is other to really know what is needed. > Dynamic libraries by there very name are dynamic and may link > other libraies in without notice, i doubt ldd will be clever enought > to see this. This has absolutely nothing to do with dynamic vs. static libs. Static libraries are part of the binary, and dynamic libraries are *very clearly* marked as required, as ldd, readelf, objdump, or literally anything else which checks ELF headers can attest. dlopen() is a *third* way of "linking" a library, and any or all three methods can be used in the same ELF file. > In the give case ldd may be ok, but it is clearly not fool-proof and > a runtime test is always required. ldd is never okay, because it cannot detect dlopen(). Nothing can, except for running the binary and tracing the calls it makes. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
