Fwd: Does uClibc support shared libraries?

[Kevin Day]

On 4/23/07, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> On Friday 20 April 2007 9:35 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Speaking of which, does anybody know the state of the aout format?  I was
> pondering building an a.out format library/toolchain/mini-system (out of
> historical curiosity as much as anything; it's still in the kernel) but don't
> am not entirely certain how to go about it, and really know what supports it
> these days.
>
> Rob
> --


linux based dos emulators?
Unless I am confusing, dosbox.

Somehow, those apps are still around.
Ultimate Boot Disk is my most familiar case

But if the kernel can disable it, so should the libc??
As one of your menuconfig options.

--
Kevin Day