-------- Forwarded Message --------From: Cyd Haselton <chaselton@xxxxxxxxx> To: brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Android Native GCC 4.9.2 Build Fails at Dynamic libgcc Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:58:49 -0600 On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Brian Drummond <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 15:51 -0600, Cyd Haselton wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Brian Drummond <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 14:20 -0600, Cyd Haselton wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Brian Drummond >> >> <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Putting this together with Andrew's message that >> > "fakechroot should have its own version of dlopen in libfakechroot.so." >> > perhaps the Android version of libfakeroot doesn't? something to check. >> > >> >> Actually the libfakechroot.so relies on either the dynamic Android >> linker or the libdl.so library...I'm not sure but I do know that 'nm >> libfakechroot.so | grep dlopen' returns 'U dlopen' > > I'm wondering if ld is CALLING dlopen for 4.9 (not LINKING) it) and that > is failing in fakechroot. That would explain why there's no trace of > dlopen in the files it's linking... > > Why it would call for 4.9 and not 4.8 I don't know... > > ... but if that IS the case, then I wonder if bulding binutils with > static linking would work? It could, but it would introduce more problems than it would solve. The following is a quote from the developer who created the environment I'm using: "Using libfakechroot to virtualize a root filesystem is a bit of a hack, to be honest, and its weaknesses are easily exposed. Most obviously, it will only filter dynamic calls to the Bionic C library (because that was the C library it itself is linked against). If you link a program with a different C library (glibc, for example), you would have to revert to hard-coding file locations to match the Android layout. The same is true if you statically link an application against the C library, because calls never go through the LD_PRELOAD mechanism." I've been in contact with him regarding a number of other ports and he's confirmed that reverting to static linking would be a pain. Also, iIn case anyone reading this is interested: http://kevinboone.net/kbox2_how_it_works.html
