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: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:27:10 -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> <52CC596A dot 5000405 at gmail dot com> <52CD193E dot 6030305 at arm dot com>
On 01/08/2014 01:24 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 07/01/14 19:45, David Daney wrote:
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?
Well AArch64 can, at least in theory, support BE and LE processes
running on the same machine (needs kernel support, of course). That
means the software needs to be able to support having both endiannesses.
Yes, I fully understand that. That is why we are concerned about this.
/lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 is already used for LE, so BE needs a
Yes that is an indisputable fact.
The question is: Should the discrimination be done in the "basename"
portion of the path or the "dirname" portion?
Perhaps I missed that part of the discussion.
It's similar to the situation on ARM, where we have the potential for
hard-float and soft-float binaries on the same system.
In terms of library names and locations, BE vs. LE is no different than
any of the other incompatible ABI variants. We have used multi-lib
configurations for these in the past, why not for BE vs. LE?
In the past we have separated different ABIs into separate directory
hierarchies. Why is that not the appropriate thing to do here.
/lib is difficult; it's the one name that's ambiguous. Go look at what
debian has been doing to support multi-lib - that's even more aggressive
in concept, with one file system able to support every platform they
Yes, Debian separates the ABI specific files into different directory trees.
Look at what RedHat does for x86_64: We have /lib and /lib64.
On MIPS we have either the new Debian Way, or /lib, /lib32, and /lib64.
I will restate my question: Why do you want to combine ABI specific
files for incompatible ABIs into a single directory? What are the
advantages of doing that over separating them as has historically been done?
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.?
Most of those can be handled through configuration files in /etc. The
dynamic loader is special in that the path to it is hard-coded into the
Yes. It is special, that is why we need to have a good reason for not
using state-of-the-art multi-lib techniques for handling it.
When you build a full distribution with a gazillion packages, you will
have a much easier time of things if all those packages will not be
clobbering libraries from alternate ABIs. Separating the ABI specific
libraries into their own directory hierarchies is how we handle this.
So I think it makes more sense to place the dynamic linker into the the
root of such a hierarchy (as is done for many other architectures)
rather than make up a bunch of unique names in /lib.
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.