| 1 |
On 11-01-2008 21:52:08 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > - sort out the 64-bits targets with their multilib-hell forced upon us |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> dont know exactly what you're referring to, but multilib is completely |
| 6 |
> optional. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.alt/3329 |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In short: gcc inserts 64-bits library paths which causes the linker |
| 11 |
first to look inside the host dirs, then in my prefix lib dirs, which |
| 12 |
creates interesting problems, since the runtime linker gets our runpath |
| 13 |
directions to look in the prefix lib dirs first. Anyway, it makes |
| 14 |
linking/runtime fail in cases where the host provided libs are |
| 15 |
incompatible with the prefix provided ones. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Added to that that when I implemented the ldwrapper on amd64 (fedora) |
| 18 |
linux I didn't fully understand the full multilib picture, some |
| 19 |
decisions I made there now just feel plain wrong, especially given that |
| 20 |
each distro seems to implement the multilib thing different (Gentoo: |
| 21 |
/lib = native bits size, Fedora: /lib = 32-bits, Debian ...). |
| 22 |
I didn't get it fully right in my post above though, because every |
| 23 |
distro/os has a kernel configured in such a way that for a 64-bits |
| 24 |
object, the search path points to the 64-bits host-specific lib paths. |
| 25 |
So it seems that only binutils doesn't want to know about 64-bits |
| 26 |
host-specific lib paths, and gcc takes actions to compensate that. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 32 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives