This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [PATCH 2/4] Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache
- From: Steve McIntyre <steve dot mcintyre at linaro dot org>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- Cc: libc-ports at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:18:16 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache
- References: <CAE2sS1iYqHVywxBGLW=O-J5ZSFmwUWt1HEH39nM3+kWwAJVZzg@mail.gmail.com> <20121130150057.GA14394@einval.com> <CAE2sS1jz3ZUh7fHq2hWQU2odbfLCwn4wm_44hTLg_rW2RP3jiw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:37:48AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre
><steve.mcintyre@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 28 November 2012 20:58, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
>>>On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:04:34PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>>Use the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 ldconfig cache tag for AArch64,
>>>>similarly to the way tags are handled for other architectures.
>>>>
>>>>========================================================
>>>>
>>>>Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache
>>>>
>>>> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/dl-cache.h: New file.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org>
>>>
>>> This looks good to me.
>>>
>>> Markus, as the AArch64 maintainer, should have the final word and
>>> check it in.
>>>
>>> Feel free to include my Reviewed-by: in the git commit logs to track
>>> reviews.
>>
>> Hmmm, problem: this adds checking for the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 at
>> runtime in ld.so, but nobody has (yet!) committed the code that will
>> add that flag from ldconfig (in patch #3 in my set). That's partly my
>> fault for not stating a direct dependency, I guess, but we'll need to
>> fix that ASAP. Would you prefer to revert *this* patch or take that
>> one too?
>
>Thanks, I hadn't noticed the dependency.
>
>Please work on getting this fixed ASAP.
>
>We want AArch64 into 2.17.
>
>> Related to Joseph's comment about #1 in the set (tagging binaries
>> based on interpreter names): splitting up ARM and AArch64 patches. I
>> can easily split #1 that way if preferred, but to my mind it makes no
>> sense to split #3 as it's a lump of common code that will run on both
>> ARM and AArch64. What do people think about that, please?
>
>Split them up please.
>
>Push them out again for review, and CC me and Joseph.
OK. Coming in a mo, in two separate threads. I'll CC you both on both
threads too.
Cheers,
--
Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs