Re: linking precedence rules

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: linking precedence rules
Date	2017-01-14 23:48 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o5e9p2$tva$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <o5da1a$bvt$1@dont-email.me> <87vathn26h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o5diu1$aun$1@dont-email.me> <o5dkni$htc$1@dont-email.me> <o5dmjp$p17$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 14/01/17 18:21, BartC wrote:
>
> OK, let's go with that. I have a version of my app in /opt/A, (and maybe
> another version in /opt/B) and I run my program X from elsewhere using:
>
>   /opt/A/X
>
> Now X wants to access files a,b,c,d associated with X and which it knows
> are in the same place. But to do that it needs to find the path /opt/A/.
> Apparently this can be done, but when I was asking about it a few years
> ago, people seemed incredulous; why would I want to do that? It's not
> the Linux way; etc.
>
> One scheme I used once was to package extra data files at the end of an
> executable (without re-building: take a working executable and add stuff
> to it). If the executable was invoked with no params, then it would look
> at that data. But to do that, again it needs the exact path of that
> executable. (For example, a self-installing executable downloaded with
> Firefox, which will be in some temp location anyway.)
>
>

To be entirely honest, I don't know how gcc does it.  I can think of a 
few different methods, but I don't know - and really, I don't care.  It 
works perfectly well - which I /do/ care about - but it does not matter 
to me whether it was a configuration option when gcc was build, reading 
/proc, or whatever.

I have lots of copies of gcc, of various versions, on a variety of 
systems.  Some of these I have build myself from source (it's sometimes 
just a few commands - but usually for my more specialised tools I follow 
a simple web page with instructions), and most have come as pre-built 
packages of compiler, libraries, and other tools.  I typically copy them 
from machine to machine with "scp".  I also have lots of copies of gcc 
on my Windows machine, again either built myself on Windows or from 
pre-built packages.  Usually these tools are a direct match for the 
Linux ones, with identical compiler and library versions and generating 
bit-perfect identical executables.

It all works.

Thread

linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-07 23:49 -0800
  Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-08 21:20 +1300
    Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-08 01:32 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 11:08 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 03:25 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0100
            OT Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:18 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-01-08 15:38 -0800
        Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 18:46 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 04:13 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 12:21 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 00:23 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-16 06:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 05:10 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-02-04 17:12 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 20:47 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-13 01:58 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 10:41 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 03:49 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 12:03 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 14:02 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 13:46 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:23 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:31 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 16:18 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 17:49 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 17:21 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 10:12 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 21:59 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:12 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 11:39 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-14 16:03 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 11:51 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 02:04 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 23:48 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 20:28 +0000
                The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:14 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 14:29 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 01:40 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-15 11:43 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-18 19:55 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:22 +0000
              Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 16:05 +0100
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 15:37 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 16:06 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 19:37 +0100
                Re: comparison logic BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-13 18:42 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 18:49 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 20:50 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-14 01:05 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:27 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 13:56 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-15 14:45 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 20:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-15 21:04 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 04:47 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 11:40 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 16:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 18:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 21:03 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 08:07 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 08:50 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 12:15 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 12:38 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 14:13 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 14:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-12 10:20 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-12 14:32 +0000
          Re: linking precedence rules James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-12 13:33 -0500

csiph-web