From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:26:40 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] glibc instead of ulibc ? In-Reply-To: <1343913806.30162.YahooMailNeo@web164601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1343854870.70701.YahooMailNeo@web164605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20120801231635.08b7d808@skate> <1343913806.30162.YahooMailNeo@web164601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120802152640.5d9cca86@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, Please keep the Buildroot list in Cc. Le Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Zoran Djordjevic a ?crit : > I am not much familiar with process of linking, but I suppose, > somwhere (in Lazarus units) is explicitly named glibc.so as file > which contains necessary binaries (let's say for fclose function). It > is so in Windows, where I must note (Delphi) dll name and function > name or index?inside that dll,?in order for linker to find wanted > function.) Otherwise, I don't know why linker would try to find > eg.?fclose function exactely?in uclibc.so. Or am I wrong with that > way of thinking ? Yes. The compiler knows which C library it has been linked against, and automatically links programs against it, unless you explicitly tell it to do otherwise. However, I don't know what Lazarus is, and how it works, so maybe it does funky things. If you want help, please share the current state of the packages you're trying to add to Buildroot and let us know how to reproduce the problem, and maybe someone will try to help on this. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com