On Thursday 19 April 2007, Ahan Hsieh 謝武漢 wrote: > Above is a FAQ of uClibc (http://www.uclibc.org/FAQ.html#shared) > > In my understanding, if shared library is supported, > toolchain and loader have been improved to support it. > > Toolchin has to compile the shared library as PIC and > transfer it to bFLT format. Also, some tricky mechanism has to > been implemented. > > Loader must be able to load the shared library. > > But I don't understand why should uClibc support shared library. > > If the uClibc support shared library on MMU architecture. > Why it can not support on MMU less architecture? > > If the shared library is compiled as PIC and transfer to bFLT format. > Why should MMU be used ? > > Any other factor that I have not consider?
i really dont know what your questions are here so i'm just going to ramble off some random statements. the ELF format is completely unlike the bFLT format. having ELF shared library support says nothing at all about having bFLT shared library support. uClibc has to implement the ldso for handling ELF shared libraries, the *kernel* has to implement the binfmt loader to handle bFLT shared library support. you cannot do normal ELF shared libraries on no-MMU because of the relationship between the sharable read-only sections (.text) and the per-process writable sections (GOT/PLT). i dont know what architecture you're dealing with but i doubt it supports FDPIC ELF on no-MMU which means you're stuck with bFLT. for any future inqueries about bFLT and no-MMU, please direct them to the uClinux mailing list. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc