Replies: 1 comment
-
I don't know of any reason why static vs dynamic link would make a difference for really any scenario. I suggest you to debug to see where the error is coming from. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Environment:
OS: Ubuntu 20.04 x86_64
MSQuic Version: v2.4.8
Issue Description:
I am encapsulating MSQuic into a network library for use by my business logic module. The linking structure works as follows:
## Original Setup (Works):
libmsquic.so → Linked to static library busi.a → Final executable demo.
ConfigurationLoadCredential succeeds consistently.
Modified Setup (Fails 70% of the Time):
libmsquic.so → Linked to dynamic library busi.so → Final executable demo.
ConfigurationLoadCredential fails with return code 22 (invalid argument) in most cases.
Goal:
Convert busi module to a dynamic library (busi.so) to reduce linking dependencies while maintaining stability.
Key Observations:
The same code works flawlessly with static linking (busi.a) but fails with dynamic linking (busi.so).
Error code 22 (EINVAL) suggests invalid parameters, but parameters are identical in both static/dynamic setups.
No obvious race conditions or uninitialized resources in the code.
I post my demo source code
Request:
What could cause this inconsistency between static and dynamic linking? Specifically:
demoQuicStruc.tar.gz
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions