Re: The Linux binutils 2.11.92.0.7 is released.

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:18:42PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:34:44PM -0700, Josue Amaro wrote:
> > H. J.,
> > 
> > I need some information about the implementation of "-z defs" on ld.  
> > Does it behave the same way that the Solaris tools do?
> > Since -z options were included for Solaris compatibility, shouldn't it 
> > behave in the same way?
> 
> It is supposed to behave the same. But I don't know what Solaris' ld
> does when symbols are missing from DSOs being linked against.
> 
> > Should -z defs ignore the glibc missing symbols?
> 
> The -z defs option in the GNU ld ignores symbols missing from DSOs
> being linked against. It is done on purpose. The theory is if you want
> to make sure those DSOs are ok, you should build them with -z defs. If
> you don't build them, you have to assume they are ok.

I don't know what Solaris does exactly in -z defs about the interpreter, but
at least on glibc systems it would IMHO make sense to allow satisfying
symbols for -z defs with symbols from dynamic linker as glibc relies on
this behaviour (otherwise one has to use -z defs only with explicit
/lib/ld-*.so on the command line).

	Jakub