[lsb-discuss] Best-effort dynamic linking -- take 1

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Mon Jul 21 14:11:38 PDT 2008


Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Yes, the thing that was not clear here is why we should exit (i.e. 
> proceed with the nativelinker) if the LSB linker is a symlink.

Thinking about this, it occurs to me that we should not just verify that 
the LSB linker is a symlink, but that it points to the native linker. 
If we add that test, does it make more sense to you?

> After reading the last argument "while (*pos && argc < 128)" 
> dereferences the pos element, which is the next after the last written 
> by read(). And it is zero only if cmdbuf was initialized by zeros.

I could have sworn that the page describing cmdline mentioned that the 
last argument was followed by a "double zero", which would have made 
this OK.  But I can't find that write-up now, and the test program I 
whipped up just now showed conclusively that no "double-zero" is present.

> As far as I know (not sure) the heap manager initialization code is 
> executed during // the first invocation of malloc-family functions. At 
> least, malloc can be called by any C++ constructor, which can be 
> executed at the similar stage.

And with older gcc, the order of initializers couldn't be guaranteed. 
Maybe gcc played some special magic, but I doubt it.  I'll test using 
malloc and see how well it works.




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list