Libtree: Ldd as a tree saying why a library is found or not

Re:Libtree: Ldd as a tree saying why a library is found or not by khoobid_shoma on Sunday June 09, 2024 @06:47PM (#40628251)

It's great that the implementation is in C and not in less efficient but fashionable languages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Libtree: Ldd as a tree saying why a library is found or not by heinrich5991 on Sunday June 09, 2024 @06:52PM (#40628288)

C++, Nim, Rust, Zig would probably work as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Libtree: Ldd as a tree saying why a library is found or not by speed_spread on Sunday June 09, 2024 @10:07PM (#40629453)

Please elaborate on how you measure a language's "efficiency". No, really.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Libtree: Ldd as a tree saying why a library is found or not by pornel on Sunday June 09, 2024 @11:43PM (#40629934)

Usually people compile a "hello world" exe, and implicitly extrapolate that size to all programs of all sizes.

...which is then followed by arguments about how libc's own size should be compared to other libs that need to be linked statically and do a different amount of work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Libtree: Ldd as a tree saying why a library is found or not by NekkoDroid on Monday June 10, 2024 @08:54AM (#40633075)

Fun little fact about gcc's lib sizes (no libc): https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/gc...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Libtree: Ldd as a tree saying why a library is found or not by pjc50 on Monday June 10, 2024 @05:35AM (#40631733)

I wonder if this implementation is exploitable by malformed libraries.

[ Parent | on HN ]