1 |
On 07/22/2013 09:19 AM, Benda Xu wrote: |
2 |
> Dear Luca, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> The patch itself is partially wrong (you might want to use a totally |
8 |
>> different layout) but surely looks interesting. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I'd like to revisit this topic. Could you please be a bit more specific on |
12 |
> where it is partially wrong? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01904.html |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
You have some flavours, e.g. |
18 |
|
19 |
+#define GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER32 RUNTIME_ROOT_PREFIX "/lib/ld-linux.so.2" |
20 |
+#define GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER64 RUNTIME_ROOT_PREFIX |
21 |
"/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2" |
22 |
|
23 |
or |
24 |
|
25 |
+#define UCLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER RUNTIME_ROOT_PREFIX "/lib/ld-uClibc.so.0" |
26 |
+#define UCLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER32 RUNTIME_ROOT_PREFIX "/lib/ld-uClibc.so.0" |
27 |
+#define UCLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER64 RUNTIME_ROOT_PREFIX "/lib/ld64-uClibc.so.0" |
28 |
|
29 |
And you add some prefix to it. |
30 |
|
31 |
while the correct patch would just wipe all this cruft and have a |
32 |
|
33 |
DYNAMIC_LINKER_{32/64/default} and a mean to set it. |
34 |
|
35 |
Everything is still not exactly great since you could have more than 2 |
36 |
abis per architecture. |
37 |
|
38 |
As said the patch is surely an improvement over the previous situation |
39 |
but doesn't help solving the problem fully. |
40 |
|
41 |
lu |