On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> > To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad@ltc.com> > Cc: "MIPS/Linux List (SGI)" <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com> > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: Can modules be stripped? > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote: > > > > > OK, you can't strip kernel modules (news to me, then again how often do > I > > > use modules?), but it can't be because they "are relocatables". I > routinely > > > strip libraries without problem, and those are relocatables too. > > > > What kind of libraries? Shared libraries are shared objects and not > > relocatables. > > Oh, oops. :-P Now I see what you mean. I confused shared object > w/relocatable. My bad. > > Did I know that kernel modules were "object files" i.e. relocatables. Yes. > But I've always referred to them as object files (.o), not relocatables, > hence the confusion. > > Which brings up an interesting question - why doesn't the kernel use .so > files for modules? If you're really curious, compare the gunk in insmod (quite a bit) with the gunk in ld.so (unspeakable). Shared libraries are a great deal more complicated than modules need to be. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
