[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: on AIX, which "soname"-equivalent to prefer with runtime linkin
Re: RFC: on AIX, which "soname"-equivalent to prefer with runtime linking?
Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:23:31 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:126.96.36.199) Gecko/20110113 Lightning/1.0b3pre Lanikai/3.1.7
On 01/21/11 17:48, Robert Boehne wrote:
> The "-brtl" isn't a "run-time linking" flag, but more exactly, it's a
> system-5 shared library compatibility mode flag.
> It is intended to provide a more familiar shared library style, not
> additional features.
As far as I can tell, runtime linking is not done on AIX without the '-brtl'
to both the shared objects and the executable. Eventually it is the '-brtllib'
that actually /enables/ runtime linking for an executable (which is added by the
'-brtl' flag and gets disabled with '-bnortllib' when creating shared objects,
explicitly or via '-G' linker flag), but '-brtl' is still necessary to /allow/ a
shared object to be subject to runtime linking.
But yes, '-brtl' also adds some extra System-V compatibility at linktime,
however something like 'DT_SONAME' is still missing.
> With AIX style shared libraries, you can put multiple versions of a shared
> library, and static versions,
> in the same archive file, 32 bit & 64 bit etc. AIX shared libraries are very
> flexible, however,
> because no other operating system (to my knowledge) supports the same
> features, those features are not portable.
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Michael Haubenwallner <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> On AIX, with runtime linking (-brtl linker flag) enabled, the current way
> how libtool creates shared libraries prevents any form of "soname"
> as there is no way to have the runtime loader to load a different version
> some shared object (either standalone or as archive member) than the
> would record into the next binary when linking against this library.