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
-
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