On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <email@example.com>
> To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "MIPS/Linux List (SGI)" <email@example.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
> > > use modules?), but it can't be because they "are relocatables". I
> > > 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