News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Holy Grail of Linux Binary Compatibility: Musl and Dlopen. Parent comment

Re:The Holy Grail of Linux Binary Compatibility: Musl and Dl... by holowoodman on Monday January 26, 2026 @07:51AM (#46765030)
Not really. Nvidia-OpenGL is incompatible to all existing OS OpenGL interfaces, so you need to ship a separate libGL.so if you want to run on Nvidia. In some cases you even need separate binaries, because if you dynamically link against Nvidia's libGL.so, it won't run with any other libGL.so. Sometimes also vice versa.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Holy Grail of Linux Binary Compatibility: Musl and Dl... by direwolf20 on Monday January 26, 2026 @08:44AM (#46765553)
Does AMD use a statically linked OpenGL?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Holy Grail of Linux Binary Compatibility: Musl and Dl... by holowoodman on Monday January 26, 2026 @08:50AM (#46765603)
AMD uses the dynamically linked system libGL.so, usually Mesa.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Holy Grail of Linux Binary Compatibility: Musl and Dl... by direwolf20 on Monday January 26, 2026 @11:18AM (#46767547)
So you still need dynamic linking to load the right driver for your graphics card.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Holy Grail of Linux Binary Compatibility: Musl and Dl... by holowoodman on Monday January 26, 2026 @11:46AM (#46767918)
Most stuff like that uses some kind of "icd" mechanism that does 'dlopen' on the vendor-specific parts of the library. Afaik neither OpenGL nor Vulkan nor OpenCL are usable without at least dlopen, if not full dynamic linking.
[ Parent | on HN ]