[Gc] Patch for __libc_stack_end

Mike Hearn mike at navi.cx
Wed Jan 26 12:24:10 PST 2005

On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 11:57 -0800, Boehm, Hans wrote:
> My concern with dlsym is that I was under the impression that
> dlopen/dlsym support for static executables also varied with
> library versions.  And static executables presumably need to be
> explicitly linked with -ldl, which I've otherwise tried to avoid.

Well, there are degrees of staticness. I don't think it's a good idea to
try and make a *fully* static binary, that's asking for glibc to screw
you over. Statically linking individual libraries works OK though.

> Perhaps we should leave 6.4 as it is, until I get a complaint about
> the /proc dependence?  (You can still work around that
> by explicitly setting GC_stackbottom (and GC_register_stackbottom
> on IA64) before the collector/allocator is invoked.)
> It sounds like the current 6.4 solution works for everybody on this
> list.

Sure, I don't mind. Whatever works for people :)

More information about the Gc mailing list