This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [AArch64] Define LP64 BE linker name.
- From: David Daney <ddaney dot cavm at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus dot Shawcroft at arm dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:45:46 -0800
- Subject: Re: [AArch64] Define LP64 BE linker name.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52CACAD2 dot 5060008 at arm dot com> <CA+=Sn1nL=FY_ZEj22aPZCCHQN762==th3f7i-c-tGS=pFhDpSA at mail dot gmail dot com> <52CC1BFC dot 2060403 at arm dot com>
On 01/07/2014 07:23 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 06/01/14 17:07, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Marcus Shawcroft
This patch defines the AArch64 LP64 BE linker name in LD.
* emulparams/aarch64linuxb.sh (ELF_INTERPRETER_NAME): Define.
Why do you want to mix the LE and BE libraries in the same directory?
Perhaps I missed that part of the discussion.
In the past we have separated different ABIs into separate directory
hierarchies. Why is that not the appropriate thing to do here.
The only reason to change the name of the interpreter is to avoid a
conflict if both LE and BE ABIs are present in the same filesystem.
What are you going to name libc, libm, libpthread, etc.?
Again I don't think this should be done as right now, binutils 2.24
and with this patch are different ABIs.
So do it now, or do it in three years time when this becomes a major
problem for someone.
I think the sooner the better with issues like this, unfortunate as that
is for early adopters. I'm sure there must be some compatibility
work-arounds you can deploy.