This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Phone call (was Re: Armhf dynamic linker path)


On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33:08AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 09:05, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> >> All good. ?My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
> >
> > The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency
> > with all the other architectures. ?Note e.g. x86_64 dynamic linker
> > is /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, not /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.
> 
> For some value of consistency. x86_64, mips64, powerpc64 and sparc64
> install to /lib64. But on ia64 it is /lib/ld-linux-ia64.so.2 and on

ia64 installs in /lib, because it isn't a multilibbed architecture.

> s390x it is /lib/ld64.so.1 [1].

Ok, I forgot about this, I've tried to convince s390x folks to move it
to /lib64/ld64.so.1 many years ago, but that just didn't happen, so
/lib/ld64.so.1 is just a symlink to /lib64/ld64.so.1.
Upstream glibc binaries use /lib64/ld64.so.1 as their dynamic linker,
while all other packages use /lib/ld64.so.1 as that is hardcoded in gcc.

That is an argument that perhaps /lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 could be
acceptable too, as it would follow the s390x model, I wouldn't be terribly
happy about that, but I could live with that.

	Jakub


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]