Re: libdl bugs

> Oh wait, you want to cover up a bug by saying that if all is installed
> well, it does not occur?

First and only warning:
Insulting developers will get you kicked from this mailing list.

> > Header check could work for an early abbort, as said. On the other hand at
> > the time I had started to look into dynamic linking, I went with the
> > premise
> > that a library should alway have their name correct.
> > Linker-scripts should be in a seperate, not in the standard lib-path.
> So, basically, you consider everything in the standard library paths that
> conforms to the naming convention to be an ELF shared object.

Which is a reasonable assumption if you think about the target audience,
embedded systems.

> > Both are easier than bloat up the library search. Even if the dynamic
> > handling is bloat in and of itself. ;)
> Oh, it has its good points: If there is a bug in a library, any program
> using that lib will have that bug, no matter if statically or dynamically
> linked. Just that with dynamic linking, all you need to do is recompile
> the lib when a patch comes online. With static linking you'd need to
> recompile the lib and all libs and programs using it. And all the programs
> and libs using the libs that use the lib. And so on.

The target audience is embedded systems, where you usually create the
whole system image in one build.

Felix