I wonder how many folks are aware that ELF shared libraries and ELF executables are the exact same thing?

There's no substantial compiling or decompiling necessary to go from shared object to executable and back. One need only add or remove the appropriate symbols from the object and (perhaps even optionally) change the object type.

Have you ever tried to directly execute your libc.so.6 on a linux system? You can.

There's nothing at all novel about this process, other than making it easy for folks who've never read the manual for their linker.

Edit: Someone downvoted this observation; I imagine they think I'm unfairly trivializing this so I'll add: Read the source code. This tool we're discussing is a simple ~100 line program. It's not complicated: https://github.com/endrazine/wcc/blob/master/src/wld/wld.c

I don't get it. Isn't there a missing step of making the objects relocatable (i.e. what -fPIC does)? That requires rewriting branches and stuff. But clearly wcc isn't doing this?

PIC makes the code position independent. That is, the code can be moved without relocation fixups. ELF executables typically use relocatable code (with relocation sections) rather than PIC because especially on i386 it has performance and size implications to use -fPIC. But on x86_64 it's actively discouraged, but not actually prevented if you generate an ELF file that the linker is satisfied with.

The main issue with that latter part is that 64 bit code can contain 32 bit relocation fixups, and such addresses will be impossible for the linker to relocate outside the 32 bit memory space, and your mileage may vary whether your load time linker will be able to even try to handle that or not on a 64 bit platform.

If your code is free of 32 bit relocations, there "shouldn't" be any reasons for them not to be usable as shared objects even if they contain relocations instead of use PIC (whether any specific load time linkers unnecessarily enforce restrictions on this is another matter).

> WCC unlinks machine code into a library, allowing you to interact with the object code and reliably include and call its functions from your own code, as if it were a shared system library rather than a black box.

Shared library is as much of a black box as an executable.

Pretty sure access to internal APIs not exposed through the executable's CLI/GUI/config/etc interfaces is typically superior to no access.

You're too optimistic about what it can do, here's a sample output: https://github.com/endrazine/wcc/wiki/wcch

This is not what I'd call an "API dump"; all prototypes return void pointers and allow any arguments.

Hence, it's just as much of a blackbox as the original executable is because you have no idea what the functions do, what arguments they take and what values they return.

I don't know, having the ability to compile your own test driver against it rather than manipulating the executable is what I'd be after with the tool. You may be reading too much assumption into my comment.