[uClibc] [Repost] Is there any advantage in utils/ldd being linked with uClibc?
Erik Andersen
andersen at codepoet.org
Tue Jan 20 20:41:35 UTC 2004
On Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:23:27PM -0700, Manuel Novoa III wrote:
> > uClibc's ldd compiles and runs fine with glibc and stock gcc:
> >
> > [charlieb at localhost utils]$ gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
> > -Wno-trigraphs
> > -fno-strict-aliasing -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -falign-jumps=0
> > -falign-loops=0 -Os -fno-builtin -I. -DNDEBUG -fPIC -D__LDSO_LDD_SUPPORT
> > -Wl,-s -DUCLIBC_RUNTIME_PREFIX= -DUCLIBC_LDSO=ld-uClibc.so.0 ldd.c -o ldd
> > [charlieb at localhost utils]$ ./ldd ldd
> > libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x00bb3000)
> > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00f38000)
> > [charlieb at localhost utils]$ ldd ldd
> > libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x00d90000)
> > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x0015b000)
> > [charlieb at localhost utils]$
> >
> > Is there any advantage in compiling this tool against uClibc?
>
> What am I missing? ldd and all the other apps in uClibc/utils are
> built to be run on the target.
Well, ldd for example can also be useful on the host. Since
there is no particular uClibc specific dependancy in these
utilities, I think they should be compiled using whatever
compiler and C library happens to be supplied when building
that directory.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
More information about the uClibc
mailing list