Tracking Issue for raw-dylib on ELF #135694
Labels
C-tracking-issue
Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this issue
Feb 3, 2025
Support raw-dylib link kind on ELF raw-dylib is a link kind that allows rustc to link against a library without having any library files present. This currently only exists on Windows. rustc will take all the symbols from raw-dylib link blocks and put them in an import library, where they can then be resolved by the linker. While import libraries don't exist on ELF, it would still be convenient to have this same functionality. Not having the libraries present at build-time can be convenient for several reasons, especially cross-compilation. With raw-dylib, code linking against a library can be cross-compiled without needing to have these libraries available on the build machine. If the libc crate makes use of this, it would allow cross-compilation without having any libc available on the build machine. This is not yet possible with this implementation, at least against libc's like glibc that use symbol versioning. The raw-dylib kind could be extended with support for symbol versioning in the future. This implementation is very experimental and I have not tested it very well. I have tested it for a toy example and the lz4-sys crate, where it was able to successfully link a binary despite not having a corresponding library at build-time. I was inspired by Björn's comments in https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/bundle-zig-cc-in-rustup-by-default/22096/27 Tracking issue: rust-lang#135694 r? bjorn3
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Feb 3, 2025
Support raw-dylib link kind on ELF raw-dylib is a link kind that allows rustc to link against a library without having any library files present. This currently only exists on Windows. rustc will take all the symbols from raw-dylib link blocks and put them in an import library, where they can then be resolved by the linker. While import libraries don't exist on ELF, it would still be convenient to have this same functionality. Not having the libraries present at build-time can be convenient for several reasons, especially cross-compilation. With raw-dylib, code linking against a library can be cross-compiled without needing to have these libraries available on the build machine. If the libc crate makes use of this, it would allow cross-compilation without having any libc available on the build machine. This is not yet possible with this implementation, at least against libc's like glibc that use symbol versioning. The raw-dylib kind could be extended with support for symbol versioning in the future. This implementation is very experimental and I have not tested it very well. I have tested it for a toy example and the lz4-sys crate, where it was able to successfully link a binary despite not having a corresponding library at build-time. I was inspired by Björn's comments in https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/bundle-zig-cc-in-rustup-by-default/22096/27 Tracking issue: rust-lang#135694 r? bjorn3 try-job: aarch64-apple try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: x86_64-msvc-2
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This is a tracking issue for raw-dylib on ELF (no RFC, extending RFC 2627)
The feature gate for the issue is
#![feature(raw_dylib_elf)].raw-dylibon ELF links against a generated stub shared object, allowing linking against libraries that are not present on the host system, for example for cross-compilation scenarios.About tracking issues
Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.
Discussion comments will get marked as off-topic or deleted.
Repeated discussions on the tracking issue may lead to the tracking issue getting locked.
Steps
Unresolved Questions
Implementation history
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: