This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [PATCH] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI
- From: Steve McIntyre <steve dot mcintyre at linaro dot org>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Michael Hope <michael dot hope at linaro dot org>, libc-ports at sourceware dot org, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, "cross-distro at lists dot linaro dot org" <cross-distro at lists dot linaro dot org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:56:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI
- References: <20120329193401.GA14860@dannf.org> <4F75F2E2.3030909@arm.com> <20120402210653.GC28152@dannf.org> <CANLjY-nk7ML5QMBd0bKRJBA9stUOdvu1tWZqmFHxpRzObzFw1Q@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204032231160.19861@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:56:18PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>(c) Please include libc-ports on future submissions and provide both the
>GCC patch and the glibc ports patch that have been tested to work together
>to build and install the library in the given path; a patch to one
>component like this cannot sensibly be considered in isolation. I imagine
>you'll need appropriate ARM preconfigure support to detect what ABI the
>compiler is using, much like the support for MIPS, so that the right
>shlib-versions files are used. I try to follow all ARM glibc discussions
>on libc-ports closely, as the ARM glibc maintainer; was there a previous
>discussion of the dynamic linker naming issue there that I missed? (The
>only previous relevant discussion that I recall is one on
>patches@eglibc.org starting at
><http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01017.html>, regarding how the
>dynamic linker should check that a library has the right ABI, and there
>was no real followup on that after I indicated what would seem to be the
>appropriate implementation approaches and places for subsequent
>discussion.)
Apologies, that was my fault - I was kept busy on other things and
didn't get back to that. At the time it didn't seem so critical when
we were still experimenting with other aspects of the system. I'll get
back to that shortly...
Cheers,
--
Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs