On Tuesday 20 December 2005 04:31 pm, Ceri Davies wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:43:58PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:58 am, Ceri Davies wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:29:27AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > The other concern is does this force the entire crunch to require a > > > > working rtld now? If so, that would mean that this wouldn't be > > > > appropriate for something such as /rescue. If there were a way to > > > > statically link rtld into the crunch itself that would probably be > > > > ideal, but I'm not sure that is possible. > > > > > > No, just the dynamic bits require rtld. > > > > So you can still run /foo without rtld being present if foo doesn't need > > dlopen, etc.? It looks like you link the crunch with -o dynamic, so > > isn't the kernel going to complain when you try to exec it that it can't > > find rtld if rtld is missing? (Think about /rescue if your rtld is hosed > > and/or missing.) > > Sorry, you're correct of course. It's still useful in Adrian's > environment at least (because he puts rtld on an MFS).
One workaround for this case would be to have two crunches, one for the pure-static stuff and one for the dynamic-using stuff. Alternatively, if you had a way to statically link the rtld functions into the crunch you could still use just one crunch. I just want to make sure we don't go turning this on for /rescue since that needs to work if rtld is hosed (unless we go the route of two crunches). -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"